CHP Feasibility Software Packages
CHP Feasibility Software Packages
CHP Feasibility Software Packages
www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng
a,*
Department of Engineering Systems, Faculty of Engineering, Science and the Built Environment, London South Bank University,
103 Borough Road, London SE1 0AA, UK
b
SEA/RENUE, 42 Braganza Street, London SE17 3RJ, UK
Received 24 February 2005; accepted 25 July 2005
Available online 3 October 2005
Abstract
Carrying out feasibility studies for combined heat and power (CHP) in buildings systems is one of the most important steps in the
decision-making process. This paper compares the features of dierent software packages available in the market and some custombuilt models. It also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of building ones own application. The number of variables that
need to be considered will depend on the level of accuracy and exibility sought. Software packages are a good start, but they tend
to be either overly simple or extremely complicated, and sometimes not very exible. On the other hand, building custom-built generic models that include dierent technologies, unit sizes, control modes, market restrictions and benets, can be a complex and
laborious process, but will be more transparent to the user.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: CHP; Cogeneration; Feasibility models
1. Introduction
Under the Kyoto protocol the participating countries
committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2010. The installation of CHP
systems to displace less ecient separate means of power
and heat generation is an important part of the UK
strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by
2010 [1].
A CHP, or cogeneration, system consists of the facility to simultaneously produce and use heat and power.
Prime movers generate power via their electric generators and use the by-product heat for space or process
heating. CHP schemes are usually more ecient than
conventional centralised power stations as they produce
electricity and heat locally, minimising the distribution
2167
Nomenclature
CHP
DTI
ECA
ETS
IRR
KTP
2. Feasibility modelling
The nancial appraisal tends to be the predominant
factor in any CHP feasibility study. But now trading
CO2 emissions and green certicates will improve the
economics of CHP. In order to asses the viability of
CHP for particular applications it is necessary to
model the system to a greater or lesser extent. Some
of the stages that should be included are discussed
below.
2.1. System denition
The estimation of demand proles (heat and power)
used by the system under analysis is of extreme importance, as all the subsequent calculations are based on
them. Demand proles can be estimated hourly,
monthly or seasonally. The level of detail needed will depend on the system under evaluation. Hourly proles
should be preferred for all year-round highly variable
loads. Monthly and seasonal gures should be used
for more steady systems. Monthly gures could lead to
miscalculations when used with hourly variable loads
as they do not actually show the simultaneous need
for heat and power [4]. The extent of this error has
not been reported in the literature.
Dening the boundaries and objectives of the application is crucial for the feasibility calculations. A single-owned system (e.g. a hospital) will aim to displace
as much heat and power as possible from the boilers
and the grid, to maximise the savings. In most cases,
there would be only one fuel supply and one electricity
contract. Power will be imported and the boilers will
be used to provide extra heat, when required. Exporting
any excess energy is not normally considered.
Another possible scenario is a community energy
scheme. Here an energy company supplies heat and
power to multiple customers. This is a more complex
scenario, and the aim would be to maximise the companys performance. The energy company is responsible
2168
3. Applications review
At present, there are dierent applications available
in the market. Some of them exclusively dedicated to
the analysis of CHP installations and others incorporating CHP as an extra module within them. The software
packages considered in this paper are briey described
below.
3.1. SEA/RENUE model
Being developed under a UK knowledge transfer
partnerships (KTP) programme, this model is part of a
2 yr project between SEA/RENUE and LSBU. It is
scheduled to be completed by the end of 2005 and is currently powered by Excel.
The feasibility process is divided in the following
steps: load proles, fuel and electricity taris, CHP unit
information, capital cost and nancial information, and
main results. At present, the model only includes natural
gas reciprocating engines from 100 kWe up to 625 kWe,
and oers dierent control strategies such as: electric led
with heat rejection, heat led with power export, heat led
without power export and full load operation. Three different types of electricity taris are available: at rate,
day and night rates, and seasonal time of day (STOD)
rates. It also includes dierent nancial options such
as investment loans, capital grants, ination index, corporate tax, discount rates and others. The main results
kWth
2169
1.500
1.000
500
4. Application comparison
0
KWe
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Time of Day
January
March
May
July
September
November
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Time of Day
January
March
May
July
September
November
Table 1
Information entered in CHP feasibility models
Input information
SEA/RENUE
CHP Sizer 2
Ready Reckoner
EnergyPro 3
Analysis period
CHP availability
Power prole input
(Max No. of entries)
Heat prole input
(Max No. of entries)
No. of proles allowed
Fuel
CO2 emissions P. Plant/
N. gas kg/kW h
Boiler eciency
Discount rate
Loan amount, %
Tax rate
Depreciation
Nat. gas price, p/kW h
Electricity import price
20 yr
90%
Hourly for 1 typical
day per month (288)
Hourly for 1 typical
day per month (288)
1
Natural gas
0.43/0.19
20 yr
Not available
Every 1/2 h for
365 days (17,520)
3 time bands
per month (36)
1
Natural gas
0.43/0.19
20 yr
90%
Monthly consumption
(max 12)
Monthly consumption
(max 12)
1
Natural gas
0.43/0.19
20 yr
90%
Monthly consumption
(unlimited)
Monthly consumption
(unlimited)
Multiple
Natural gas
0.43/0.19
75%
10%
0%
0%
0%
1.1 p/kW h
Day 5.5 p/kW h;
night 2.5 p/kW h
3.0 p/kW h
0%
75%
10%
Not available
Not available
Not available
1.1 p/kW h
Day 5.5 p/kW h;
night 2.5 p/kW h
Not available
Not available
75%
10%
0%
0%
0%
1.1 p/kW h
4.0 p/kW h;
All day
3.0 p/kW h
0%
75%
10%
0%
0%
0%
1.1 p/kW h
Day 5.5 p/kW h;
night 2.5 p/kW h
3.0 p/kW h
0%
2170
EnergyPro and SEA models can use simple and complex electricity tari structures. CHP Sizer 2 uses up to
three time bands (but not seasonally variable) and dierentiates between weekdays and weekends. Ready Reckoner only accepts a at rate electricity tari. Dierent
fuels could be used in EnergyPro and Ready Reckoner,
i.e. solid, gaseous and liquid for both, boilers and
CHP. SEA and CHP Sizer are mainly intended for natural gas.
Only Ready Reckoner and SEA have a database with
real CHP units. CHP Sizer uses nominal unit sizes and
EnergyPro needs the input from the user. The nancial
information requested varies with the level of information gathered by the user. EnergyPro and Ready Reckoner include an advanced level of nancial appraisal,
which is an optional module. SEA includes a medium
level of nancial parameters and CHP Sizer a low level
of nancial options.
After entering the demand proles and other parameters, results for three dierent control scenarios were
obtained in all the applications. The results are discussed
below and shown in Tables 24.
4.1. Heat led control strategy
Ready Reckoner does not allow load following,
therefore a heat led control strategy was not possible
be carried out in this software. The results obtained by
SEA and EnergyPro are similar, but only monthly gures were entered in EnergyPro, which explains the
slightly higher gures in NPV and IRR. On the other
hand, CHP Sizer gave much lower values for NPV,
IRR and CO2 savings than the other two, but this was
mainly because the CHP unit used by the programme
was less ecient. This ineciency aected the calculations over the 20 yr analysis period.
Table 2
Results for heat led operation
Heat led control
SEA/RENUE
CHP Sizer 2
Ready Reckoner
EnergyPro 3
Unit selected
Running hours
CO2 savings, Tonnes/yr
Capital cost, K
Net savings K/1st year
Simple payback, years
NPV (10%, 20 yr), K
IRR [20 yr], %
Detailed results
Transparent results
210 kWe
6386
328
143
40.9
3.5
205
28.4
13 pages
Yes, easy to follow
200 kWe
7300
180
143
27.8
5.1
81.4
N/A
1 page only
No, too many assumptions
Not available
210 kWe
7884
427
143
42.6
3.4
236
34.1
Extensive, +10 pages
Yes, easy to follow
Table 3
Results for electric led operation with heat rejection
Electric led control
SEA/RENUE
CHP Sizer 2
Ready Reckoner
EnergyPro 3
Unit selected
Running hours
CO2 savings, Tonnes/yr
Capital cost, K
Net savings K/1st year
Simple payback, years
NPV (10%, 20 yr), K
IRR [20 yr], %
210 kWe
7884
282
147
35.4
4.2
154
23.7
200 kWe
6500
220
147
30.6
4.8
103
N/A
Not available
210 kWe
7884
353
147
39.7
3.7
210
31.5
Table 4
Results for full output operation with heat rejection
Full load control
SEA/RENUE
CHP Sizer 2
Ready Reckoner
EnergyPro 3
Unit selected
Running hours
CO2 savings, Tonnes/yr
Capital cost, K
Net savings K/1st year
Simple payback, years
NPV (10%, 20 yr), K
IRR [20 yr], %
210 kWe
7884
308
147
41.1
3.6
203
27.8
Not available
210 kWe
7884
330
147
31.4
4.7
120
20.9
210 kWe
7884
391
147
46.3
3.1
269
37.6
2171
5. Conclusions
The detailed feasibility study of CHP applications involves many dierent variables which makes it a complex process. Understanding the diculty of the
feasibility and modelling of the system are essential.
CHP Sizer is a simple tool, only valid for the UK,
which allows carrying out feasibility studies in only ve
steps. It is only intended to give a rst feasibility indication. Ready Reckoner requests a great number of inputs,
which can be confusing for the user. It is very comprehensive in terms of fuel, CHP equipment and nancial
options, but it only allows a maximum of 12 entries for
each load prole, which it is not satisfactory with highly
variable proles. EnergyPro is a powerful and exible
application. Many dierent scenarios can be modelled,
but a good understanding of the system and the program
is fundamental. In order to model specic energy systems, training is required. The SEA/RENUE model is
at the early stage of development, but it is trying to incorporate the best features of the models herewith described.
It is relatively exible, comprehensive and easy to follow,
but the user interface is still modest.
Some free programs suer from lack of exibility and
transparency. They are excellent tools for a rst approach, but can be misleading as knowledge of the calculation procedure, or ability to input all the key
variables, is incomplete. Buying software is a valid option and a comprehensive testing by the user is desirable.
Some companies oer free fully operational demos and
others very limited ones.
The advantage of custom-built spreadsheets is that
they can be easily modied to respond to dierent scenarios and are transparent to their users. But due to
the number of operations involved, there is a high risk
of miscalculations which are normally dicult to nd.
Developing a complete generic model is a dicult and
time consuming process, requiring signicant technical
knowledge modelling skills. Condence in the model
comes from rigorous testing, both against other software
and using real data. However where an organisation
requires a exible, transparent and fully comprehendible
feasibility program, such in-house development may be
the preferred option.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this work was provided by SEA/RENUE and the UK DTI, under the KTP programme
2172