D6.3 Final Workshop - · PDF fileD6.3 Workshop Case Study Results ... •MAIP / AIP include...

D6.3 Workshop Case Study Results p. 1

FC-EuroGrid PUBLIC

FC-EuroGrid

D6.3 Workshop Case Study Results

Due date of deliverable: 31.07.2011 Actual submission date: 26.02.2013

Start date of project: 01.10.2010 Duration: 24 months Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: University of Birmingham Revision [final version]

Dissemination Level PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

D6.3 Workshop Case Study Results p. 2

FC-EuroGrid PUBLIC

Update history: none Acknowledgment: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative under grant agreement no. 256810.

1

Subject AGENDA – Final Public Project Workshop Date 26 Feb 2013

Time / Location ENEA Offices, Rue de Namur 72-74, B-1000 Brussels

+32 2 512 0448 Author R. Steinberger-Wilckens, ChemEng, UoB Phone +44 – 121 415 8169 Fax E-Mail [email protected] Participants

Ellart de Wit (HyGear), Oliver Posdziech (sunfire), Mirela Atanasiu (FCH JU) [not present], R. Steinberger-Wilckens, G. Koreneff, B. Groh, L. Weber, Y. Mermond, M. Blesznowski, U. Birnbaum, Jo. Mertens, B. Ridell, N. Griessbaum, T. Koljonen, V. Cigolotti, M. Gaeta, A. Moreno

Tuesday, 26 Feb. 2013

Time Subject

Final Public Workshop

11:00 – 11:30

11:30 – 12:00

Introduction and Project overview Analysis methodology and data review

12:00 – 12:30 Simulation model and example results

12:30 – 13:00 Sensitivity analysis results

sandwich lunch break

13:45 – 15:30 Discussion on project results, implications for residential CHP installations across Europe and for FCH JU MAIP goals

15:30 – 16:00 Wrapping up

16:00 End of meeting

Programme Review Day Brussels, 28/29 November 2012

Evaluating the Performance of Fuel ll i lCells in European Energy Supply

Grids

FC‐EuroGridContract number FCH JU 256810

Robert Steinberger WilckensRobert Steinberger‐WilckensUniversity of Birmingham

Project descriptionProject description

• duration 01.10.2010 – 28.02.2013

• total budget 805.931 €, funding 588.982 € (73%)

• addresses the development of benchmarks and indicators to assess the impact of emplo ing f el cells for stationar applications in ario simpact of employing fuel cells for stationary applications in various European electricity grid environments

The consortium consists of 9 partners:

University of Birmingham (coordinator)

h l hForschungszentrum Jülich Grontmij AB

European Institute for Energy Research EIfER E.ON Ruhrgas

Teknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT ENEATeknologian tutkimuskeskus VTT ENEA

Institute of Power Engineering IEn EBZ GmbH

Problem addressedProblem addressed

• MAIP / AIP include no clear indications as to the desired minimum performance stationary fuel cells have to deliver in order to contribute to the EU goals of increasing energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions and thus achieve funding

• stationary fuel cell performance has to match and surpass CHP requirementsy p p q

• useful indicators are‐ amount of CO2 avoidedamount of fossil energy avoided or substituted‐ amount of fossil energy avoided or substituted

‐ total and electrical efficiency

• the environmental benefits will vary according to the electricity grid the installation is situated in

• methodology of assessment has been established

Project goalsProject goals

• map European electricity grids with respect to performance indicators

• identify the most meaningful indicators

• develop a methodology for assessing the resources and environmental advantage delivered by fuel cells in the electricity market(s)

• derive actual performance figures in given scenarios (SFH and MFH) via• derive actual performance figures in given scenarios (SFH and MFH) via simulation models using static performance figures (efficiency, turn‐down ratio, etc.)

• run assessment exercises for various FC technologies in different European grids

• evaluate results and methodology• evaluate results and methodology

• discuss results with stakeholders in Europe in order to find a common agreement on methodology

• discuss results with US and Japanese institutions

Input Data: Power GenerationInput Data: Power Generation

D t b f t d t• Database of system data

Input Data: Indicatorsp

• Database of

INDICATORS

indicators: Structure

I1– Fuel Input

Electricity supply system Environmental footprint Economy

I1 Fuel Input

I2 – Electricity & heatoutput

I7 – National GHG emissions

I8 CO emission factor

I10 – Energy prices

I3 – Losses, net import, etc.

I4 – Final consumption

I8 – CO2 emission factor

I9 – Emission fromelectricity production

I11 – Externalcosts

I5 – Installed capacity

I6 – Fuelconsumption

Simulation Calculations

winter workday (cloudy)• calculation of FC performance punder ‘real’ operating conditions

summer workday

conditions

Benchmarking ApproachBenchmarking Approach

reference systems:1 Single Family Home (SFH)1. Single Family Home (SFH)2. Multi Family Home (MFH)

- Calculation of system performance with 1-hour time steps- Comparison of key figures of merit

* system CO2 emissiony 2* primary energy use* electrical and total efficiency

- different operating strategies: (1) heat & (2) electricity following, p g g ( ) ( ) y g,(3) economic optimisation

- different CHP technologies: Stirling, ICE, PEFC, SOFC

Technology ChoiceTechnology Choice

Efficiency Peak TotalCompany Name Capacity

Efficiency el

Peak boiler

Total efficiency

[kWel] [kWth] [%] [kWth]mCHP for residential applicationsapplicationsGas engine SenerTec Dachs 5.5 12.5 27 93

ecoPOWER ecoPower 4.7 1.3 - 4.7 4 - 12.5 24 96Vaillant/Honda ecoPower 1.0 1 2,8 22,5 12 - 30 90

Stirling engine EHE Wispergen 1 5.5 - 7.5 11 14 5 90Stirling engine EHE Wispergen 1 5.5 7.5 11 14.5 90BDR eVita 0.9 7 13 18 105

Fuel Cell Baxi Innotec Gamma 1.0 0.3 - 1 0.5 - 1.7 32 15 85Hexis Galileo N 1 2 30 20 90

CFCL Bl G 0 2 0 3 160 (at

20 85CFCL Blue Gen 0 - 2 0.3 - 1(

1.5kW)20 85

Alignment with MAIP

• “Notably specific technical and economic targets are to be developed and a technology benchmarking, based on a pan‐developed and a technology benchmarking, based on a panEuropean assessment, is to be performed for residential, commercial and industrial applications..”

t ib ti t t t tti f AIP d MAIP d th• contribution to target‐setting for AIP and MAIP and the technology assessment activities in evaluating programmeprogress

F t re perspecti esFuture perspectives

• report on energy efficiency and GHG impact assessment of stationary fuel cell technologies under various operating and gridstationary fuel cell technologies under various operating and grid constraints will be prepared for FCH JU and general public

• input to development of MAIP 2.0

• influence on current MAIP was not possible due to complexity of MAIP development process

Open Q estionsOpen Questions

• changes in future electricity grid carbon footprint (20‐20‐20 goals etc.) will reduce impact of NG driven FC‐DG(20 20 20 goals etc.) will reduce impact of NG driven FC DG

• development of ‘smart grids’, new storage options and new load patterns will have an impact on operational strategies of i CHP ( i t l l t k h i l l tmicroCHP (virtual power plants, peak shaving, local storage,

electromobility etc.)

• reduction of heating demand will reduce employment potential g p y pfor fossil fuel based microCHP

• biomass‐derived hydrocarbon fuels and green hydrogen may enter the fuel marketenter the fuel market

• with market entry, the impact at a systems level has to be analysed, not at a single point of use

Thank You for your Attention !Thank You for your Attention !

FC- Eurogrid DatabaseWorkshop Brussels 26 February 2013Workshop Brussels 26 February 2013

Bengt Ridell 26 February 2013

Status of the Atlas in WP1 base year 2008

Input template revison of Eurostat dataInput template revison of Eurostat data

SwedenSweden

DenmarkDenmark

WP 1 DatabaseWP 1 Database

The conditions are very different in the different European countriescountries

Eurostat data are in general Ok but we had to revise some of them

It is very difficult to get accurate data for heat production

One major discussion was how to handle fuel for CHP d tiproduction

AnalysisAnalysis methodologymethodology and data and data reviewreview

TheThe FCFC--EurogridEurogrid projectprojectTheThe FCFC--EurogridEurogrid projectproject

Marcin Błesznowski (Marcin Błesznowski (IEIEn)

INSTITUTE OF POWER ENGINEERING (INSTITUTE OF POWER ENGINEERING (IEnIEn))Warsaw, PolandWarsaw, Poland

Brussels, 26 February 2013

The final electricity consumption in MWh/capitaThe final electricity consumption in MWh/capita

25

20

15

10

5

-

The sectors’s share of electricity consumptionThe sectors’s share of electricity consumption

70%

50%

60%

40%

50%

20%

30%

0%

10%

0%

Industry sector's share of electricity consumptionTransport sector's share of electricity consumptionHouseholds sector's share of electricity consumption

CO2 emissions in tonnes CO2/GWh(2008‐2009 yr.)

600

700

400

500

300

100

200

0

Emission [tonnes/GWh] Germany France Poland Denmark UK Sweden Italy Finland NorwayNOX - average 0,43 0,09 1,45 0,36 0,59 0,03 0,22 0,46 0,00SO2 0 32 0 13 2 87 0 08 0 53 0 02 0 26 0 34 0 00SO2 - average 0,32 0,13 2,87 0,08 0,53 0,02 0,26 0,34 0,00Particals - average 0,23 0,01 0,15 0,02 0,02 0,01 0,01 0,03 0,00

Total GHG emissions from energy sector inTotal GHG emissions from energy sector in tonnes CO2 (2008‐2009 yr.)

700 000 000

800 000 000

500 000 000

600 000 000

700 000 000

400 000 000

500 000 000

200 000 000

300 000 000

0

100 000 000

Assessment of indicators

Indicator name: 2 87%2.49% 0.00% 0 00% 1 03%Poland DenmarkIndicator name:

The total fuel input share

0.57%

2.87% 0.00%

0.29%48.68%

29.99%

16.91%

0.00% 1.03%Poland Denmark

5 12%

0.00%0.00%12.55%0.00%

93.77% 3.39%

28.79% 0.00%5.16% 1.03%

4.18%0 67%

Germany France

Finland

Italy

26.55%

13.26%

55.06%

5.12%1.40%

13.79%

39.76%

32.50%

49.87%

13.69%

4.18%

2.96%

85.99%

0.67% Finland

37.66%

4.40%

16.88% 0.20%

17.09%

0.00% 1.03% Coal

Oil

0.64%7.00%

2.21% 0.75%1.52%0.00%

UK Sweden Norway

40.11%

0.82%

26.79%54.27%

Oil

Gas

Biomass, waste, peat, etc

Uranium

17.72%

77.80%


0.74%Uranium

Other fuels

FC Eurogrid database and indicators

All the data base and the methodology to defineand calculate the indicators are published in

The Atlas descibing all countries with The Atlas descibing all countries with database summary and the different conditions in all countries

The Methodology handbook describing the calculation of the indicators presentation of the results

FC H JU is co‐financingthe FC‐EuroGrid Project.

AnalysisAnalysis methodologymethodology and data and data reviewreview

TheThe FCFC‐‐EurogridEurogrid projectprojectgg p jp j

Marcin Błesznowski (Marcin Błesznowski (IEIEn)

INSTITUTE OF POWER ENGINEERING (INSTITUTE OF POWER ENGINEERING (IEnIEn))INSTITUTE OF POWER ENGINEERING (INSTITUTE OF POWER ENGINEERING (IEnIEn))Warsaw, PolandWarsaw, Poland


ContentFC H JU is co‐financingthe FC‐EuroGrid Project.

Content

• Scope of the WP2.

• Database structure methodology• Database structure, methodology.

• Assessment of idicators.

• Conclusions• Conclusions.


Scope of the WP2FC H JU is co‐financingthe FC‐EuroGrid Project.

Scope of the WP2

Objectives of WP2:

• to define indicators (data, figures, metrics, etc.) characterising the EU powersupply system, its emissions and other selected criteria.

• to develop a common assessment framework for analysing data fromWP1• to develop a common assessment framework for analysing data fromWP1.

• to organise the data collected in WP1 in an operational database for furtheruse in the project.


Database structureFC H JU is co‐financingthe FC‐EuroGrid Project.

Database structure

The indicator based methodology:The indicator based methodology:

DRIVERS RESPONSESDRIVERS

Energy intensity and consumptions, gross, domestic production,

RESPONSES

Energy savings, efficiency, renewable

energy, social efficiency awareness

STATE

Waste, emissions GHG, etc.



Database structure

INDICATORS

Electricity supply system Environmental footprint Economy

I1 – Fuel Input

I2 Electricity & heat output

I7 – National GHG emissionsI10 – Energy prices

I2 – Electricity & heat output

I3 – Losses, net import, etc.I8 – CO2 emission factor

I4 – Final consumption

I5 I t ll d it

I9 – Emission from electricity production

I11 – External costs

I5 – Installed capacity

I6 – Fuel consumption



Database structure

Matrix structure:

Indicatorno.

Indicatorname

Country Unit Formula Data Source

I1.1Total fuelinput

Country A GWh F_t 440 648 1input

I1.2 … Country B … … … …

I1 3 Country CI1.3 … Country C … … … …

… … … … … … …


Assessment of indicatorsFC H JU is co‐financingthe FC‐EuroGrid Project.


Indicator name:Indicator name:The total combustible fuel used for the production of power and heat in MWhfuel / capita

30

40

20

0

10

Combustible fuel input per capita Nuclear fuel input per capita




Indicator name: 2 87%2.49% 0.00% 0 00% 1 03%Poland DenmarkIndicator name:

The total fuel input share

0.57%

2.87% 0.00%

0.29%48.68%

29.99%

16.91%

0.00% 1.03%Poland Denmark

5 12%

0.00%0.00%12.55%0.00%

93.77% 3.39%

28.79% 0.00%5.16% 1.03%

4.18%0 67%

Germany France

Finland

Italy

26.55%

13.26%

55.06%

5.12%1.40%

13.79%

39.76%

32.50%

49.87%

13.69%

%

2.96%

85.99%

0.67%

37.66%

4.40%

16.88% 0.20%

17.09%

0.00% 1.03%Coal

Oil

0.64%7.00%

2.21% 0.75%1.52%0.00%

UK Sweden Norway

40.11%

0.82%

26.79%54.27%

Gas

Biomass, waste, peat, etc.

Uranium

Other fuels

17.72%

77.80%


0.74%Other fuels



Indicator name:Indicator name:

Total electricity output per capita in MWhel./capita Shares of fuel in gross electricity generation

25

30

80%

100%

15

20

40%

60%

0

5

10

0%

20%

0

Renewables Nuclear Fossils Waste & Others




Indicator name:Indicator name:Electricity losses share in total electricity output

30%

20%

30%

10%

0%





The final electricity consumption in MWh/capita The sectors’s share of electricity consumption

20

25

50%

60%

70%

10

15

30%

40%

50%

-

5

0%

10%

20%

-

Industry sector's share of electricity consumptionTransport sector's share of electricity consumptionHouseholds sector's share of electricity consumption


y p



Indicator name:Indicator name:Installed capacity in MWe

90 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

0

10 000

20 000

Fossil fuel fired power plants Nuclear power stations Hydro power stationsWind turbines Other





Transmission efficiency of produced electricity in power sector

Fossil and combustible fuel efficiency in electricity production

100%

80%

100%

40%

60%

80%

40%

60%

80%

0%

20%

40%

0%

20%

40%

Fossil fuel efficiency in electricity production

Combustible fuel efficiency in electricity production




CO2 emissions in tonnes CO2/GWh(2008‐2009 yr ) Total GHG emissions from energy sector in

700 000 000

800 000 000

2 2/ (2008‐2009 yr.) gytonnes CO2 (2008‐2009 yr.)

600

700

400 000 000

500 000 000

600 000 000

300

400

500

0

100 000 000

200 000 000

300 000 000

0

100

200

300

00

Emissions from electricity production in tonnes/GWh

Emissions

[tonnes/GWh]Germany France Poland Denmark UK Sweden Italy Finland

NOx - avarage 0.43 0.09 1.45 0.36 0.59 0.03 0.22 0.46

SO2 - avatage 0.32 0.13 2.87 0.08 0.53 0.02 0.26 0.34


Particles - avarage 0.23 0.01 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03



Indicator name:

Electricity, gas, coal and oil prices (per kWh)

Electricit price

Country

Electricity price

(per kWh)Gas price (per kWh) Coal price (per kWh) Oil price (per kWh)

Domestic

(1)

Industry

(2)

Domestic

(3)

Industry

(4)

Domestic

(5)

Industry

(6)

Domestic

(7)

Industry

(9)

Germany 0.22 0.09 0.071 0.034 - - 0.076 0.039

France 0.12 0.06 0.059 0.292 - 0.008 0.1 0.026

Poland 0.14 0.10 0.053 0.032 - 0.023 - -

Denmark 0.28 0.08 - 0.035 - - - -

UK 0.15 0.08 0.039 0.026 - 0.012 - 0.030

Sweden 0.18 0.07 0.123 0.046 - - - 0.046

Italy 0.17 0.15 0.480 0.430 - - - -

Finland 0.15 - - 0.030 - 0.014 0.076 0.049

Norway 0.12 0.08 - 0.045 - 0.014 - -

(1) consumption < 2 500 kWh/year; (2) consumption > 2 500 kWh/year; (3) consumption < 15 000 kWh/year; (4) large industrial customers; average value for electricity and heat production;( ) p y ; ( ) p y ; ( ) p y ; ( ) g ; g y p ;(7) average value for electricity and heat production (8) average value for electricity and heat production

data for 2008 – 2009 yr.




Indicator name:Indicator name:External cost for electricity production in € cent per kWh

Coal &Country

Coal &

LignitePeat Oil Gas Nuclear Biomass Hydro PV Wind

Germany3÷6 5÷8 1÷2 0.2 3 0.6 0.05

France 7÷10 8÷11 2÷4 0.3 1 1

Poland

Denmark4÷7 2÷3 1 0.1

UK 4÷7 3÷5 1÷2 0.3 1 0.15

SwedenSweden

Italy 3÷6 2÷3 0.3

Finland 2÷4 2÷5 1

Norway


ConclusionsFC H JU is co‐financingthe FC‐EuroGrid Project.

Conclusions

• Development of the power supply infrastructure database.

• Indicators classified into 3 main groups (Electricity Supply, Environmental footprint, Economy).

• Assessment framework for analysing data.



Thank You

for attention!


Introduction Input data and Case studies Results: HD operation Results: EF operation Conclusions

FC EurogridWP 4 - Sensitivity analysis of mCHP operations

Niklas Griessbaum, Yannick Mermond

EIFER

25.02.2012

Niklas Griessbaum, Yannick Mermond EIFER

FC Eurogrid


Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2 Input data and Case studies

3 Results: HD operation

4 Results: EF operation

5 Conclusions


FC Eurogrid


Table of Contents

1 Introduction




5 Conclusions


FC Eurogrid


Context of WP 4Preceding workpackages/deliverables have provided:

A mCHP heating system model

Benchmarks of mCHP systems

Information and data of European energy systems

Data on typical domestic energy demand

Deliverable 4.2 combines these inputs to compile data onexpectable performance of mCHP systems in various applications


FC Eurogrid


ObjectivesCompiling of system specifications and application contexts thatprovide prosperous ground for the integration of mCHP systems.The specifications include:

System

System efficiencies

System dimensions

Cycling behaviour

Application

Energy price thresholds

Load characteristics

Emission factors

A Identification of critical input parameters for the operation ofCHP systems by

B Qualification and Quantification of optimal values for theseparameters


FC Eurogrid


Methodology and output parameters

Analytical analysis of mCHP operation

Simulation based sensitivity analysis

KPIsEnvironmentally: CO2 savingsEconomically: Operation costTechnically: Working regime


FC Eurogrid


Table of Contents

1 Introduction




5 Conclusions


FC Eurogrid


Categorization of Input parameters

Application

Demand: Usage of two loadcurves1.

Energy price varying ragesaccording to variousEuropean countries

Emission factors varying inranges according to gridtopologies in variousEuropean countries

System

Operation modesHD and HF

Machine characteristicsAbility to shut down (y/n)

Power Pel , Pth

Efficiencyηel , ηth and ηtot

1Load A and Load B (Finland 1970 SFH, France SFH) Differ from eachother by El demand, th demand load shape


FC Eurogrid


Problem description

Constant output

Boiler losses

Thermal (tank losses)

Variable output

CHP losses

El export/import

Blow off


FC Eurogrid


Problem description

Constant output

Boiler losses

Thermal (tank losses)

Variable output

CHP losses

El export/import

Blow off


FC Eurogrid


Table of Contents

1 Introduction




5 Conclusions


FC Eurogrid


Output: Operative hours

Runtime increasing withlower Pth

Runtime higher for higherdemand (Load B)

Non stop operationachievable

R: ratio of electrical to thermal power

R = PelPth

= ηelηth

thus Pth = R ∗ Pel


FC Eurogrid


Output: CO2 savings

fgrid is the deciding factor

CO2 reductions increasewith higher fgrid

break even at about200 g/kWh (= fgas)


FC Eurogrid


Output: CO2 savings

fgrid is the deciding factor

CO2 reductions increasewith higher fgrid

break even at about200 g/kWh (= fgas)


FC Eurogrid


CO2 emissions analytically I

Conventional emissions ecfrom boiler and from grid:

ec = egrid + eboi

egrid = fgrid ∗ Eel ,dem

eboi = fgasEth,dem

ηboi

Emmissions with CHP eCHP fromboiler, grid and CHP:

eCHP = egrid + eboi + eCHP

egrid = fgrid(Eel ,dem−Eel ,CHP)

eboi = fgas(Eth,dem−Eth,CHP )

ηboi

eCHP =Eel,CHP

ηel,CHP

Solving the break even point results in possible savings if

ec > eCHP → fgridfgas

>1− ηth

ηboilηel


FC Eurogrid


CO2 emissions analytically II

this results consequently in the following threshold curves:

ηth > ηboi (1− ηel ∗ fgridfgas


FC Eurogrid


Discussion point: is fgrid the right factor

fgrid represents average grid emission factor. I.e.

fgrid =∑

mCO2∑Eel,prod

This may seen valid for imported (bought el. energy)

Exported electrical energy may on the other side replacepower plants with far higher specific CO2 emissions (e.g. coal)

Therefore the usage of an emission factor for the replaced el.energy could render better results


FC Eurogrid


Output: Operation cost savings

(R=1)

ri =cgas

cel,imp, [ri ] =

EUR/kWhEUR/kWh

re =cgascel,exp

, [re ] =EUR/kWhEUR/kWh

Financial benefits dependmainly on the price ratios

for “good” price ratios,higher el. powers arepreferable


FC Eurogrid


Table of Contents

1 Introduction




5 Conclusions


FC Eurogrid


Input: Demand distribution I

High share ofdemand with lowpower

Even for highdemand household,more than 60%below 1 kW


FC Eurogrid


Input: Demand distribution II

Illustration of coverable demand for systems with different nominalpower (a minimal power of 30 % nominal power was assumed)


FC Eurogrid


Output: CO2 savings

Emission reductionsdepend strongly onoperation mode

Turning point at about200 g/kWh

Standby: Reductionsincrease with Pel

Shut down: Reductionsdecrease with Pel


FC Eurogrid


Output: CO2 savings

Emission reductionsdepend strongly onoperation mode

Turning point at about200 g/kWh

Standby: Reductionsincrease with Pel

Shut down: Reductionsdecrease with Pel


FC Eurogrid


Output: Change in operation costs

(Standby operation, Pel = 1kW )

Cost benefits increase monotonwith ηtot

Benefits depend strongly oncountry-specific price structure

Benefits increase with ηel


FC Eurogrid


Table of Contents

1 Introduction




5 Conclusions


FC Eurogrid


Questions?


FC Eurogrid


Thank You for your attention


FC Eurogrid

Programme Review Day Brussels, 28/29 November 2012

FC‐EuroGridSummary of Findings

Robert Steinberger‐WilckensU i it f Bi i hUniversity of Birmingham

The Good News FirstThe Good News First ….

- microCHP based electricity generation has its place in the European energy systemf l ll d li i i d ti i- fuel cells can deliver emission reduction, primary energy savings and operating cost reduction in most European countries

- in most cases, heat following mode will be preferred –unless virtual power plants are consideredtheir performance indicators partly need further- their performance indicators partly need further improvement to high total and electrical efficiencies, power-to-heat ratio, cycling capability etc.

- sensitivity analysis provides the break-even points where microCHP improves the emission and energy balance and how to prioritise technical developmentp p

Technology ChoiceTechnology Choice

Efficiency Peak TotalCompany Name Capacity

Efficiency el

Peak boiler

Total efficiency

[kWel] [kWth] [%] [kWth]mCHP for residential applicationsapplicationsGas engine SenerTec Dachs 5.5 12.5 27 93

ecoPOWER ecoPower 4.7 1.3 - 4.7 4 - 12.5 24 96Vaillant/Honda ecoPower 1.0 1 2,8 22,5 12 - 30 90

Stirling engine EHE Wispergen 1 5.5 - 7.5 11 14 5 90Stirling engine EHE Wispergen 1 5.5 7.5 11 14.5 90BDR eVita 0.9 7 13 18 105

Fuel Cell Baxi Innotec Gamma 1.0 0.3 - 1 0.5 - 1.7 32 15 85Hexis Galileo N 1 2 30 20 90

CFCL Bl G 0 2 0 3 160 (at

20 85CFCL Blue Gen 0 - 2 0.3 - 1(

1.5kW)20 85

Average Efficiency

System ComparisonSystem Comparison

Project resultsProject results



Effective Emissions

Thank You for your Attention !Thank You for your Attention !

D6.3 Final Workshop - · PDF fileD6.3 Workshop Case Study Results ... •MAIP / AIP include...

Documents

Transcript of D6.3 Final Workshop - · PDF fileD6.3 Workshop Case Study Results ... •MAIP / AIP include...