University of Maryland College Park
-
Upload
fma-summits -
Category
Education
-
view
24 -
download
3
Transcript of University of Maryland College Park
Turning Renewal Challenges into Opportunity: Campus Utility Plant and Master Plan
FMA Future Facilities SummitOctober 18, 2016
Learning Objectives
• Case study of a combined utility master plan and condition assessment to identify long term costs
• Preparation of near and long term implementation plans and using continuous commissioning to ensure intended results
• Tools for condition assessments
University of Maryland College Park• Campus Growth
– Existing campus ~13.5 million gross square feet – Near term identified 17% increase in building area
• Energy Infrastructure – Central Energy Plant (CEP)
• Combustion Turbines• Heat Recovery Steam generator• Boilers
– Steam distribution– 13.8 kV Electrical distribution– 13 District chilled water plants (SCUBs)
Background
• Development of the study– 2012: Developed Utility Master Plan (did not include assessment of
infrastructure)– 2014: Assessed major equipment in Energy Plant – 2015: Assessed electrical and steam distribution
• Third Party Operates– CEP– Steam distribution– Electrical distribution– 1 of 13 SCUBs
• Current contract with third party will end by fiscal year 2019– Potential to extend contract an additional 5 years
Goals of Assessment and Studies• Determine upgrade needs for the next 25-year phase of operation
– Include campus growth
• Synchronize with campus goals– Resiliency– Minimized financial impact– Sustainability
Agenda – Utility Master Plan• Steam System Review
– Current condition– Potential future options
• Electrical System Review• Chilled Water System Review
Steam Distribution Assessment• Steam Distribution Assessment
– Manhole survey – Thermal aerial flyover– Piping segment age / general condition summary
• Renewal– Piping & manhole
• Consequences• Options (District Hot Water)
– Building steam use– Energy savings for hot water loop– Updated steam piping costs
Steam Manhole Survey Summary
Manhole C-125Uninsulated / Flooded
Manhole C-155Uninsulated / Flooded
Manhole STM-123Structural Repair
Manhole 510Condensate Leak
Steam Manhole Survey Site
Capital RenewalSteam Manhole Costs:$~12 Million
Steam and Condensate PipingSteam Piping Condensate Piping
Steam Piping Renewal
• Reactive Piping Replacement (0-5 years): $17.4 million
• Proactive Piping Replacement (6-15 years): $62.9 million
• Total Piping Costs: $80.3 million
• Manholes Upgrades Costs: $11.7 million
• Total Steam Distribution Costs: $92.0 million
Central Energy Plant Assessment
• Combustion Turbine (not completed by RMF)
• Back Pressure Steam Turbine (not completed by RMF)
• Heat Recovery Steam Generators
• Boilers
• Deaerator Nos. 1, 2,3
• Condensate Receiver
• No. 2 Fuel Oil Piping
• Polishers/ Softeners
Capital Renewal for Central Energy Plant
Existing Chilled Water SCUB SitesChiller
Location
Replacement Interval (age > 25 yrs)
0-5 yrs(Tons)
6-10 yrs(Tons)
11-15 yrs(Tons)
> 15 yrs(Tons)
SCUB’s 5,120 10,490 --- 3,925
Buildings 2,600 250 --- 5,200
Total 7,720 10,740 --- 9,125
28% 39% --- 33%
Capital Renewal / Future Chiller
Total Replacement costs: $51.8
Total costs: $60.7
New costs: $8.9
Electrical Manhole Survey Summary• Total No. of Manholes:
~360 manholes• Manholes Surveyed:
52 Manholes• Minor maintenance
items identified
Building Transformers62 Building Transformers (36 buildings surveyed)
A.V. Williams South B
Epply
Physics
Splice Testing• Modular Splice installations was concerning due to recent failures.• RMF inspected 2 of the 5 locations in question• Findings
– Installation Issues– Deterioration of components– Possible Failure Points
• Deteriorated splice components were replaced• Entire splice assembly was tested and placed back into service.
– Feeder 4 still had low test results on Phase A.
Future Feeder Capacity
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
FDR 1 FDR 2 FDR 3 FDR 4 FDR 5 FDR 6 FDR 7 FDR 8 FDR 9 FDR 10
FEED
ER C
APAC
ITY
(KVA
)
Remaining Capacity
Future Load
Existing Measured Peak Load
(9,311 kVA)
Base Option Recommendation
Alternative Considered• Steam Distribution Alternatives• Energy Plant Alternatives• Interconnect Existing SCUBs• Islanding CEP from Utility System
Alternative to Steam: Building Steam Use
Hot Water Analysis
Hot Water Costs Comparison
STEAM PIPING COSTS HOT WATER PIPING COSTS ANNUAL SAVINGS
EX. PIPING (0-5 YRS) EX. PIPING (6-15 YRS)
HOT HOT EST.TOTAL WATER WATER TOTAL NO. OF STEAM DIST. TOTAL
PIPING PIPING PIPING PIPING STEAM PIPING PIPING CONVERTOR UPGRADE STEAM MAINT. ENERGY FUEL ANNUAL SIMPLEOPTION SCENARIO DESCRIPTION LENGTH COSTS LENGTH COSTS COSTS LENGTH COSTS COSTS COSTS TRAPS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS PAYBACK
NO. (LF) ($) (LF) ($) ($) (LF) ($) ($) ($) (NO.) ($/YR) (MMBTU/YR) ($/YR) ($/YR) (YRS)
1DISTRICT
STEAM SYSTEM 1,936 2,614,000 1,650 3,085,500 5,699,500 --- --- --- 5,699,500 15
2ZONE 1
HOT WATER SYSTEM 390 729,300 --- --- 729,300 3,000 3,780,000 675,000 5,184,300 2 1,950 3,840 33,300 35,250 (15)
3DISTRICT
STEAM SYSTEM 884 1,166,000 7,000 13,090,000 14,256,000 --- --- --- 14,256,000 32
4ZONE 2
HOT WATER SYSTEM 500 935,000 --- --- 935,000 7,000 13,300,000 1,485,000 15,720,000 2 4,500 8,060 69,900 74,400 20
5BOTH
STEAM SYSTEM 2,820 3,780,000 8,650 16,175,500 19,955,500 --- --- --- 19,955,500 46
6ZONES
HOT WATER SYSTEM 890 1,664,300 --- --- 1,664,300 10,000 17,080,000 2,160,000 20,904,300 4 6,300 11,900 103,130 109,430 9
Energy Plant AlternativesReplace Existing Cogeneration with:• Smaller units• Same size units• Larger Units
Energy Plant Recommendation• Larger cogeneration units
– More economical when compared to purchasing power– Higher first cost– Has a higher carbon footprint than purchasing “green power”– Largest units may require SCR or Urea
Chilled Water InterconnectionBase Option
• Replacement cost: $36 M• Distribution costs: $ ---
M• New chiller cost: $ 9
M
Interconnection of SCUBs
• Replacement cost: $36 M• Distribution costs: $ 9 M• New chiller cost: $ ---
M
• Additional benefits include more efficient operation with part loading existing equipment
• Less maintenance required
Recommended Alternative
Simplified Heating Schematic
Potential Funding Opportunities• New Operating Agreement for Cogeneration system• Bond for steam and hot water piping• Energy savings from CHP and Piping
– Renewable Energy District or Renewable energy
– Controls Integration project
– Resiliency projects
Questions?
Mary-Ann Ibeziako, PEMUniversity of Maryland
Director, Engineering and Energy(301) 314-0474