Posts

New Small Turbines, 600 Watts to 2 MW

/0 Comments/in , /by

As distributed generation continues to evolve (technically and politically), microturbines continue to be one of the main technologies in the mix. Capstone, of course, is the only one with a truly commercial product and sizeable installed base. The collapse of the Honeywell Parallon program is well known. (Less well known–or so the story goes– to avoid any future liability for performance or maintenance, the company bought back and destroyed every unit they’d sold.) Meanwhile, other companies entering or about ready to enter the field with commercial units, such as Turbec, Ingersoll, Elliott, etc.

This note reviews a number of other contenders. Some are startup companies at various stages, actively engaged in fundraising. Others, less visible, have been built for defense applications with no active effort to pursue commercial uses. Two of these companies have aggressive near term plans to sell components for turbines, either replacement parts or OEM.

*available information at:
http://www.ufto.com/clients-only/turbines/ [password required]

++++++++++++++

M-DOT Aerospace http://www.m-dot.com

M-DOT is an engineering and manufacturing company in Phoenix, specializing in turbine technology, primarily for military/aerospace. With funding from DARPA, they have demonstrated the world’s smallest operating gas turbine and are developing a soda-pop can size gas-turbine driven 600-watt alternator intended to be a compact, carry-able power source for the soldier. They’re about to launch a development program for a 6 KW turbine with the requisite light weight and performance characteristics for commercial applications, particularly in portable power.

Bryan Seegers, CEO, 408-752-1911 x13, bseegers@m-dot.com

++++++++++++++

IHI Aerospace

Originally built for military and civilian use, IHI’s Dynajet 2.6 KW microturbine genset is selling commercially in Japan is 1.2 million Yen (about $9000) "for use in Japan only" (kerosene fuel). There are no plans for export. They don’t have a natural gas version. Very little information is available, though I do have a 2-page product description and spec sheet (*available). The unit measures 30"x10"x11" and weighs 140 lb.
[The contact at IHI prefers not to be listed.]

++++++++++++++

ALM Turbine http://www.almturbine.com/

The Company is developing a new "Dual Stream Engine" (DSE) mini-turbine for small-to-medium size power generation and automotive applications. The DSE can be scaled to generate power between 25kW and 300kW, with efficiencies of 37 – 40%. The engine recirculates the exhaust–the intake is 5/6 exhaust and 1/6 makeup air.

Certain parts and components will upgrade existing installed turbines to make them cleaner and more and efficient. One of these replacement parts is a revolutionary combustion system for large, medium and small turbines (5kW ? 250MW) with NOx levels of 3ppm or less, without the use or need of a catalyst. ALM’s combustion system prevents the creation of emissions as opposed to after treatment or clean-up technologies such as SCR.

ALM is working with a number of companies to develop aftermarket combustors for the existing installed base of large heavy-duty turbines (i.e. GE Frame 7EA) and for other size turbines. (Utilities want an alternative to the GE monopoly on replacement parts.) ALM is seeking partners to develop combustors to retrofit Solar, Rolls Royce and GE LM series turbines. The combustor uses external premix with no dilution zone, and has no pilot nozzle. ALM has developed technology to run significantly leaner than conventional DLN combustors.

ALM, then, is addressing two goals; 1. to make and sell their small engines (preferably with a strategic partner), and 2. to sell parts for existing large turbines, which should begin to generate significant revenues in the near term.

ALM recently signed a $3 million contract with the California Energy Commission to deploy a number of miniturbine beta units in the field. They’ve presented at several venture conferences, and are actively seeking additional funding. An executive summary is available.*

Contact MartyKalin, CEO 202-778-8538, x134 mkalin@almturbine.com

++++++++++++++

OPRA http://www.opra.nl/

The 1.6 MW all radial OPRA OP16 is a new engine evolved from operational and design experience of an earlier engine developed in Norway more than thirty years ago by a team led by Jan Mowill, the CEO of OPRA.

The old Kongsberg engine demonstrated high reliability and endurance in applications ranging from backup power for hospitals and banks to auxiliary power supply for merchant ships, off shore platforms and combined heat and power (CHP) applications for process industries. More than a thousand generating packages were delivered worldwide and some eleven million operating hours amassed.

Key features of the new engine include single stage highly efficient rotor components, and a unique burner design using a lower temperature lean burning flame.

Most of the combustion development on the engine was made with diesel fuel, significant for customers without access to natural gas infrastructure, for marine installations, and for dual fuel applications. Achieving low emissions on liquid fuels is also considered the most difficult by the turbine industry. Recent engine testing on natural gas demonstrated NOx levels as low as 5 ppm. Emission levels with diesel fuel #2 of 20 ppm NOx, 5 ppm UHC and 2 ppm CO is now well established. Even the typical "diesel smell" has disappeared from the exhaust of the OP16 engine.

Simple cycle shaft efficiency is 26%. A recuperated OP16R is under design and will yield an efficiency of 38%. Utilization of the exhaust heat will provide hot water and/or air conditioning, boosting the overall fuel utilization efficiency to nearly 90%.

The company, now in the Netherlands, is expanding to the US. There are currently investment opportunities in OPRA.

Contact Jan Mowill, rjm@opra.nl
tel +31 (011) 74 245 2125 fax +31 (011)74 245 2139

++++++++++++++

Wilson TurboPower

Wilson TurboPower’s first product, a rotary regenerator, is based on MIT-patented technology (US Pat RE37,134). It raises the efficiency of microturbines from 30% to 35%.

Turbines typically use recuperators, or "air-to-air" heat exchangers, that recover heat from the exhaust to preheat incoming air. Because of the extremes of temperature and temperature cycling which are a challenge to materials, recuperators are high in cost if they are to be reliable. Effectiveness (efficiency) is typically 88-91%. (Heat must travel through the barrier separating the hot and cold sides.)

Another approach is a "regenerator", where a material is heated directly, and then the same material surface is exposed to the cold side. Effectiveness can reach 95-97%. A typical system (e.g. an air heater) has a ceramic honeycomb of porous disk which rotates slowly between openings to the hot and cold sides. In a high performance application, sealing against leakage is a problem that hasn’t been solved before. Wilson’s innovation consists of "stepping" the disk’s rotation. Seals are released momentarily when the disk moves, and clamped again when it stops.

Microturbine companies that represent Wilson’s customer base include GE, Ingersoll-Rand, Pratt & Whitney, Turbec (a Volvo/ABB joint venture), Elliott, and Capstone. The regenerator will be prototyped and tested in 2002 and field tested by prospective customers in 2003. Wilson will ship in 2004 and/or license manufacturing rights to one or more of its customers.

Wilson’s next product will be a microturbine (MIT patent applied for) that will be the first distributed power generation product with efficiencies at about 50% and costs at about $500/KW. This performance is possible with the regenerator, which in turn permits a lower pressure ratio and lower rpm, so cheaper ceramics can be used compared with "high-performance" turbines. The ceramic regenerator also operates at higher temperatures than turbines using stainless steel recuperators.

The company believes it can reach profitability in 2 years with a total investment of under $3 million, which they are now raising.

Contact Bruce Anderson, 617-290-9913, brucenanderson@alum.mit.edu

++++++++++++++

Candent Technologies

"Turbine in a turbine" –The engines being developed by Candent Technologies do not require a recuperator, but will use instead a high pressure ratio (> 16 atm), simple cycle turbine to achieve the desired performance.

The engine has two spools, low pressure and high pressure; one sits "inside" the other one.
— LP Spool: centrifugal compressor (single stage) and axial turbine (2-stage), with the shaft directly coupled to an alternator
— HP Spool: centrifugal compressor (single stage), combustor (Catalytic), and turbine (radial inflow)

The LP compressor supplies pressurized inlet air to the HP spool, whose output is directed back to the LP turbine and then exhausted. The HP spool thus acts as a kind of supercharged combustor for the LP spool.

Based on detailed design modeling, this simple cycle system is expected to have lower production costs than an equivalent recuperated system, as well as lower operating cost and higher reliability (lowest reliability component is typically the recuperator itself). The cost of the additional spool will be less than the cost of the recuperator (in a 750 kW system, $25K for the additional turbomachinery versus $75K for a recuperator). Operating life will increase to around 30,000 operating hours, versus less than 10,000 hours.

The engine configuration, while unique, does not push performance, cost, or design envelopes. The company’s plan relies on simplicity and proven technology imported from the aero engines, which routinely run at pressure ratios much higher than current power generation turbines. The operating temperatures have been kept low in order to prolong component life and allow utilization of common and less expensive materials, while the choice of higher pressure maintains quite competitive thermal efficiencies for the system. They expect their "alpha" will essentially be the "beta", since the modules and subsystems used are substantially similar to thousands already in service in many engines.

The team has deep experience in all aspects of the turbine industry, and has designed dozens of aircraft and land-based turbines using proven design codes and components.

The company needs partners and capital.
Contact: Hernando Munevar, 317-442-0624, hmunevar@comcast.net
Mark Bobbi, 203-758-7702, WaldoBobbi@aol.com

+++++++++++++

Rolls Royce

Rolls is developing a 1 MW hybrid SOFC-Turbine system. The company is now satisfied that its IP-SOFC possesses the necessary performance characteristics for commercialisation, and is starting to bring the technology out of the lab. Rolls is beginning to develop a low cost production process, and has designed a hybrid 1MW power plant, which combines an 800kW SOFC with a 200kW turbine, which will be developed very specifically for this application. Rolls expects to have prototype systems in place in 2004-5, and to begin selling units in 2005-6. Initially, it plans to target US power generation markets, and with this in mind it is not at present developing a CHP system. Rolls-Royce says that its stack cost target of US$300 per kW is already achievable. It is aiming for a maximum system efficiency of 65%.
[source: Fuel Cell Today, http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/

A detailed presentation on the program (found it with google)
http://www.h2net.org.uk/PDFs/EndUse/H2net%20RAL%20Sep01.pdf

Colin Berns, 011-44-1332-248382, colin.berns@rolls-royce.com

Travel Reports

/0 Comments/in , /by

In September, I attended these three conferences. They were all different, but also had a great deal in common. This writeup attempts to capture major themes and to provide highlights of some of the more interesting developments that came to light. Please don’t hesitate to let me know if you’d like further details on anything discussed below (or anything you see on the agendas that I didn’t mention).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EESAT Electric Energy Storage Applications and Technologies Conf.
Sept 18-20, 2000, Orlando, FL

Distributed Power Strategies and Business Opportunities
Sept 25-27,2000, Washington, DC

Clean Energy Roundtable
Sept 27-29, 2000, Aspen, CO

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One major common theme–

“Attack of the Killer Investment B’s”

Many investment banking firms are cranking up bigtime to get a piece of the action in high9s-clean-distributed energy technology. They’re starting to “get it” and don’t want to miss out, though there’s a lot they don’t know about it (and their in-house utility analysts aren’t much help). They’re attending these events in ever increasing force, and also putting on their own!

BofA Securities, CIBC World Markets, Robertson Stephens, First Albany, Deutsche Banc Alex Brown, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Lehman … They’re issuing research reports, initiating coverage, and investing in and pushing services to companies in this industry. Not only are they coming to energy conferences, they’re putting on their own, usually invitation-only for clients and other investors.

– Goldman Sachs will be handling Powercell’s (zinc-bromine flow battery) next financing, following a recent $30 Million infusion from a variety of investors.

– Credit Suisse First Boston is acquiring DLJ, which is doing a private placement for ZBB (the other zinc-bromine flow battery).

– Bear Stearns, famous for their very popular 250 page research report, “Distributed Energy Services” back in April, is coming out with one on microturbines in the next couple of weeks, with more to follow.

– Beacon Group, recently acquired by Chase H&Q, has been actively doing energy technology investments alongside their extensive array of more traditional energy sector plays.

– Price Waterhouse Cooper is helping STM (stirling motor) to raise $4M each coming from a coalition of DTE, Delco Remy, Ricardo (engine consultants) and a group from Singapore, to be followed in the near future with a probable private offering.

The main drivers behind all this excitement include deregulation/competition, demand for premium power, environmental concerns (new regs, Kyoto, etc.), and technology advances (renewables, distributed resources, and the internet). Add to that the general supply crunch here and abroad. While there are some aspects of the investment “flavor of the month”, these trends are seen as real, irreversible, and significant.

Traditionally, development stage companies are financed by venture capital or corporate money. Now, however, companies are going public earlier and earlier (“pre-earnings” and even “pre-revenue”). This means that retail investors are engaging in “public venture capital” as it has been called, taking on the higher risk of early stage companies.

Speaking plainly, there’s a bubble in the pre-ipo and public company stocks that is similar to what’s been happening in the dot-com world and elsewhere. The players are piling on, and both good and bad can come of it. While this industry enjoys all the attention and increased capital (and valuations), there will be a continual shaking out, with big winners and losers–as we’ve seen very recently. One just hopes the losers won’t put a drag on the whole sector.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clean Energy Roundtable http://www.montreuxenergy.com

This is one in a series of invitation-only conferences, many in Europe, targeting senior executives. The “Aspen Clean Energy Roundtable” meeting was the 7th annual such event, with many repeat attendees. A number of major energy companies, bankers, and NGO’s were represented, plus a sizable contingent from the DOE National Labs, but just a few utility people. Speakers are strongly discouraged from doing sales pitches, but rather to shed light on big trends and issues.

The biggest trend and issue — a widely held view that is an absolute necessity to come up with a “low/no carbon” energy future, in light of global climate risks and population growth and economic development. Furthermore, hydrogen is the key, as the main energy carrier of the future. There were a few visionaries who began talking about the potential of a “hydrogen economy” in the mid 70’s (during the first oil crisis). Maybe their day is coming.

Another prominent theme was the evolving role of government, from “Nanny” to enabler. Bruce Stram of Enron Energy Services spoke about this historic role of government, intervening heavily to cope with market imperfections, as less necessary as telecommunications and information flow improve. Instead, government should avoid “command and control” and instead punish social externalities with penalties, and support a vigorous R&D program.

Swiss Re reviewed their outlook that global climate issues represent huge risks to the insurance industry, noting losses from hurricanes and other weather-related damages. They’ve been very active promoting Kyoto, emissions trading, and clean development mechanisms.
http://www.swissre.com/e/issues/environmental.html

Shell Hydrogen is a new independent business within the Shell group. CEO Don Huberts explained the parent company’s commitment to sustainable development (disposed of coal assets, and set up Shell Renewables and Shell Hydrogen). He described a 250 kW SOFC installation in Norway integrated with fish farming, use of an SOFC with injection of CO2 into depleted wells and deep aquifers, commercial and residential CHP with SOFC or PEM, and a proprietary natural gas processor to make hydrogen for residential fuel cells.
http://www.shell.com/hydrogen-en/

Valuing Renewables — Shimon Awerbuch of ICF Consulting reviewed his work on using a portfolio approach to valuing renewables. Traditional engineering-based approaches are completely inadequate–they ignore financial risk; they didn’t work in manufacturing (completely missed computers, robotics, and CAD); and they don’t work for high capital, low operating cost projects. Portfolio concepts are routinely applied in securities investment, where adding even a higher cost (lower return) investment to a portfolio can reduce the total risk, for an overall better result. See his articles Public Utilities Fortnightly, Feb 15, 2000, and Energy Policy (to be published) awerbuch@aol.com

Other presentations included:

CMS Energy is pursuing environmentally friendly technology solutions, including microturbines for gas field pumping operations, a methanol plant installed in Africa to eliminate a massive gas flare, and their own “virtual power plant” program they’re calling Elan (electric local area network).

Honeywell’s microturbine group sees their devices fitting into a seamless array of energy management systems, controlled over the internet in real time.

Stirling Energy Systems, in Phoenix, is gearing up to develop huge solar power farms using dish concentrators with the Swedish-made Kockums stirling engine.

H-Power is aggressively pursuing rural markets for their existing commercial small scale PEM fuel cell systems.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Electric Energy Storage Applications and Technologies Conf.
EESAT http://www.cmcmtg.com/eesat

The message is similar to the June ESA meeting [See UFTO Note, 25 April, 2000]
–storage is coming into its own, as part of the boom in new energy technology, along with DG, renewables, premium power, etc. The complete proceedings will be published in hardcopy and on a CD, by early December.
~~
Keynoter Bill Parks, the lead for DOE’s new Distributed Power effort, [UFTO Note May 31] noted the convergence of many issues, including growth (economic, population and energy demand), price spikes, high oil imports, power quality needs, air and water quality, and climate change. New companies are entering, and everyone proclaims to be green. On top of that, average energy efficiency in the US hasn’t improved, capacity margins are below 10%, and power infrastructure is aging. DOE’s expanded efforts will go beyond the core technology R&D emphasis, to deal with systems, and to address institutional barriers. For example, the IRS is reviewing depreciation schedules for CHP and DG.
~~
Value of Storage – Tom Jenkin, Brattle Group, described an LP model they’ve developed to analyze in detail the arbitrage possibilities for a storage system. The model calculates the maximum net revenue over a one week period by optimizing the use of a generic storage device, hour by hour. At any given time, the device can do one of four things: charge (i.e. buy energy), sell energy, sell reserve capacity, or do nothing. Using price data for the California ISO, initial results suggest a capital cost of $250-$750/kW can be supported in this kind of application. tjenkin@brattle.com, 617-864-1576.
~~
At EA Technology (UK), they’ve developed a model to calculate net present value cost-benefit of various storage technologies in various applications. Alan Collinson, abc@eatl.co.uk
~~
Regenesys, the National Power spin off, has announced their first commercial scale project (120 MWH, 15 MW) at a power plant in the UK. This is one of the prominent “flow” battery technologies discussed several times before in UFTO Notes. Notably, they have qualified it to provide blackstart, in addition to energy management, arbitrage, and frequency and voltage regulation. They also have an initial agreement with TVA to the first N American installation.
http://www.innogytech.com
~~
Tokyo Electric is getting good results with their advanced sealed Sodium-Sulfur battery. A key to safety is an innovative self-shut down mechanism where an inner tube expands if heated (by the reactions that would result from a leak) and blocks the ceramic electrolyte. A 6 MW, 48 MWH system has been operating since mid 1999, for load leveling and ancillary services.
~~
AutoCap reported on the advantages of charging battery cells individually, greatly extending the expected life of batteries in large systems. When an entire string of cells are charged in series, due to variations some cells are overcharged and some undercharged. They’ve developed a system with an isolated charger, and a cell selector device that monitors and charges one cell at a time. This applies only to the maintenance charging, not the heavy recharging cycle after a discharge.
http://www.autocap.com/
~~
New Supercapacitor — there are countless stories around about ultracaps or supercaps. Many use low voltage aqueous electrolyte concepts, with extremely high surface area electrodes made of very porous materials, and utilizing the double layer effect. Though they can deliver unheard of capacitance in small packages (farads instead of microfarads), these cells have problems with high impedance and self-discharge. To reach any useful working voltage, cells must be put in series, and run into additional issues to do with voltage balance. According to tests of an 11,000 Farad unit at EPRI PEAC, a Russian company has a breakthrough concept involves an asymmetrical design, which solves these problems, and can deliver very high discharge rates over a wide temperature range, with high specific energy.
~~
From the website: http://www.esma-cap.com
“JSC ESMA electrochemical capacitors utilize a polar cell and aqueous electrolyte. The negative electrode is made of an activated carbon material having high surface area, where electric energy is accumulated at the electric double layer. The positive electrode is made of nickel hydroxide and designed for high charge/discharge rate. This combination of electrodes provides a 4-5 times increase in specific energy over capacitors designed with both electrodes made of a carbon material. The maximum operating voltage of the cells ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 V depending on the capacitor type and its operating mode. The capacitor is prismatic in shape, with a case made of plastic. It has a resealable safety valve in its cover to release gas during improper use when a certain value of excess pressure is reached. JSC ESMA capacitors have been designed to remain in service even if the operating voltage level is exceeded. Capacitor operating characteristics do not degrade if the capacitor is operated under an excessive voltage level over a short time. The capacitors can withstand a short circuit current caused by improper handling.”
~~
Emitter Turn-Off Thyristor (ETO) is a new solid state switch developed at Virginia Tech that promises great improvement over GTOs and IGBTs. It is a hybrid based on the GTO and MOSFET. It is much smaller and simpler, it uses less drive power, and it is 10 times faster — it can turn off 3000 amps in 2-3 microseconds, vs. 30 for present devices. This speed will enable switches that can react to faults in time to safely turn off rather than relying on fusing. Virginia Tech is actively looking for licensees to commercialize the ETO. (I have pdf copies of the full paper and the patent application.)
~~
Zinc Bromine Flow Batteries (ZBB & Powercell) Powercell’s standard unit is the PowerBlock, 100kW/100kWh, in one self contained package complete with power electronics, is in production. (http://www.powercell.com) ZBB Technologies Inc. in Wisconsin is developing a larger utility scale version, with DOE funding. Two 400 kWh demonstration units are being installed on Detroit Edison’s system this Fall. Though based on the same original work at Exxon years ago, the two programs have important design differences.
~~
Flywheels!
Active Power, following on their very successful IPO, has a deal with Caterpillar, who is selling systems under the name CAT 250. This is a 250 KVA, 12 sec system. A price of $250-325/KVA was mentioned. Active Power has also recently built active harmonic filtering into the package. Duke Power reported on a demo installation at one of their customer sites.

Magnet-Motor (Germany) reported on their use of 2KWH/150 KW flywheels on public buses, ever since 1988. Company website: http://www.magnet-motor.de/homeengl.htm

Several programs are working on flywheels using superconducting magnetic bearings: the Shikoku Research Institute, Chubu Electric with Mitsubishi, and Boeing Phantom Works. This last one appears to have some resemblance to the earlier work at Argonne that was supported in part by ComEd. It is funded under the DOE Superconductivity Initiative.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Distributed Power Strategies and Business Opportunities
Sept 25-27,2000, Washington, DC

http://www.intertechusa.com/energy/distributedpower2000/introduction.html

One of dozens of conferences on distributed power, this one had some big names and a high level of international participation, but no big announcements or new insights. As usual, the networking opportunities were at least if not more valuable than the sessions.
~~
Ake Almgren, CEO of Capstone, was co-chair, with Mark Fallek of DTE Energy. In his opening remarks he noted that DG and central station plants are both needed, it’s not an either-or situation. DG can be thought of as another way to “distribute” power, not to “generate” it. Central station plants have a very long lead time, and difficult siting requirements. Also, T&D costs contribute as much as $4-500/KW to the price of power, which DG can avoid. Fallek cited some future global market estimates for DG of $38 billion/year. Premium power, now a $50 billion market, is growing at 30%/yr, suggesting $500 billion in 15 years.
~~
Bob Shaw, who single-handedly invented venture capital in new energy technology, and who helped start many of the notable companies now making headlines, gave a perspective that was extremely bullish on DG and renewables, but a bit alarmed about the “bubble” situation. He is convinced that DG really will take over from central station power, sooner rather than later. DG is a perfect case of a “disruptive technology”. The engines built by US automakers every year are equivalent to the capacity of the entire US generating system. So, an industry 1/10 the size of Detroit could replace that system in a mere 10 years. The fact that VCs and Wall Street see energy technology as the “next big thing” is making capital available to this sector as never before, but it is also leading to unsustainable valuations that could become problematic. The paper is available online: http://www.arete-microgen.com. I also have a copy of the powerpoint presentation, which provides some additional material.
~~
“First, Second, or Third Coming??”
Is DG just a replay of one or two previous episodes, or very different this time? Shaw clearly espoused the latter view, but others were less convinced. In the 60’s, a midwestern gas company pushed a “total energy” concept based on reciprocating engines; maintenance problems and the poor suitability of recips to baseload operation proved the undoing. In the 80’s, the PURPA QF provisions led to a swarm of packaged cogen installations; QF contracts have all but faded from the scene. Shaw maintains that today’s convergence of developments is really different. Robert Swanekamp, editor of Power Magazine, took an extreme contrarian position that DG is a non-event, and that 1/2 of the large CCGT’s on order will be cancelled as a power glut emerges. He said he had no knowledge of the disruptive technology argument, but that didn’t stop him from dismissing it. (He was probably the only person present who hadn’t heard about Clayton Christensen’s ideas and their relevance to DG. See UFTO Note 19 April 1999; or http://www.disruptivetechnologies.com/)
~~
Technologies — there were a dozen or more presentations by companies: makers of fuel cells, stirling engines, and microturbines; power electronics, internet-based controls and energy management; and O&M.
Barriers — reports on the EEI and IEEE interconnection efforts; an excellent overview of competitive, institutional, regulatory and financial obstacles by Nat Treadway, (for a similar presentation, see http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/deri/info/may2000/treadway.pdf)

CADER/DPCA Symposium on Distributed Resources

/0 Comments/in , /by

[I’ll be attending the DOE Distributed Power Program Review and Planning Meeting in Washington next Monday September 27, followed by the IEEE working group session.]

San Diego Sept 13-14

(see program/agenda at http://www.cader.org)

The meeting was very well attended, exceeding expectations, with roughly 400 registered. It included keynotes by notables (Larry Papay of Bechtel, Dan Reicher, Ass’t Secty, EE/DOE, and David Rohy, Calif Energy Commissioner) and two days of parallel sessions on “Policy”, “Technologies” and “Markets”. It was impossible to be in 3 places at once, however the 2″ thick binder provided copies of the vugraphs from most of the presentations.

A dominant theme: it is not a matter if, or even when, but only of how fast, distributed generation will be deployed on a major scale. In fact, DG is already here, and has been for a long time, in various forms and applications. If it truly is a “disruptive technology”, then we can expect it to lurk below the surface, serving in various niche applications, until a crossover occurs and it emerges an a major scale.

The biggest issue seems to be interconnection with the grid. Advocates see utilities as putting up strong resistance. One speaker, Edan Prabhu, explained it terms of distribution departments, at the low end of the totem pole in utilities, trying to protect themselves and their “turf” from this dangerous invasion of “their” system. He explained how the good guys meet the “nice guys”–DG advocates vs. the well-meaning protectors of the system.

There was considerable muttering in the back of the room as speakers from the California utilities claimed to be doing all they can. Repeatedly, we see instances where utilities can handle interconnections just fine, when they want to. In other situations, however, they seen as throwing up roadblocks and delays. Ironically, utilities are entirely comfortable with large motors, which feed back fault current when voltage disappears, but this same issue is seen as a huge problem for DG.

As Dan Reicher explained in his comments, nine states have now gone ahead to establish some kind of interconnection standards for small scale generation, while the long term answer is to have one new national standard. The IEEE work under Dick DeBlasio is key to this, and DOE also supports the development of advanced hardware and software for interconnection.

———–
There was a very good summary of the remarkable events in Texas, where a process has moved with unprecedented speed to cut through the confusion and arrive at an interim set of workable policies. The proposed rules are available online:
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/rulemake/21220/21220.cfm

A hearing is scheduled for October 25. The presentation was given by Nat Treadway, a former PUC analyst, who is now on his own. 713-669-9701, treadway@alumni.princeton.edu
———–
New York state has a similar initiative for small DG (under 300 KVA). A commission staff proposal was issued in July, however timing of a decision is uncertain. Comments were due by September 20. http://www.dps.state.ny.us/distgen.htm
————
In California, the PUC took longer than expected to announce a decision on a staff recommendation to split their rulemaking proceeding into two parts — Distribution Competition, and DG Implementation Issues. A draft decision to do this was finally announced Sept 21, and is now available online (2 documents) at:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/distgen/docs.htm
————
The California ISO presented an interesting comparison of technical requirements for large generators on the system with what might be needed for DG. Generators need to have sophisticated communications and control capabilities that the ISO can monitor and talk to directly. The ISO is implementing the “ANALOPE” system to do some of this over the internet (there is a strong need to certify bids and contracts–i.e. failsafe digital signatures). Once this is established, it may pave the way for the use of internet technology to communicate with DG’s and enable them to participate in the California energy and ancillary services markets.
(Contact: David Hawkins 916-351-4465 dhawkins@caiso.com)
http://www.caiso.com/pubinfo/info-security/index.html
http://www.caiso.com/pubinfo/info-security/projects/analope/faq.html
————
The Technology sessions featured presentations by makers of microturbines, fuel cells, reciprocating engines, dish stirling, storage, and renewables. Discussions on “Markets” ranged from the “sleeping giant” of international electric demand, to combined heat and power and the use of smart technology to capture market value. Selected items may be featured in future UFTO Notes.

Is DG like the PC?

/0 Comments/in , /by

This article by our friend Mark Mills appeared in World Climate Report, and again (modified) in the June 1 issue of Public Utility Fortnightly. A good reality check on the rhetoric of distributed generation. I especially like the point that there’s no “Moore’s Law” for electric power generation.

===================

http://www.nhes.com/back_issues/Vol4/v4n12/fueling.html

Distributed Generation is to Electricity as PCs are to…?

By Mark P. Mills

Distributed generation is the latest “killer application” at energy conferences and seminars. Global apocalysts say DG is to electricity what the PC has been to the computer industry. Just as PCs supposedly took down mainframes and the likes of IBM, so too will DG erase central, fossil-fueled power plants and big utilities.

Even otherwise serious vendors of DG technology have found themselves seduced into playing the climate change card in the hopes of benefiting from imminent federal largess.

DG enthusiasts believe the day will soon come when consumers can head over to Home Depot and buy a little “appliance” to take home, plug in, and supply all the power needed, grid-free. Prototypes already exist for a refrigerator-size generator that works like the “auxiliary power units” airplanes use to make electricity while sitting at the gate (don’t they make life comfortable?). The trade press is filled with DG hype. Independence (from those “evil” utility giants who’ve provided us with cheap power for 75 years) looms near.

Eco-hype

Energy tech forecasters and global climate change scaremongers share an ally. The anti fossil-fuel lobby has for 25 years been predicting the imminent demise of fossil fuels, the planet’s primary energy sources, and the imperative to shift to something else. The climate change threat only increases the urgency of making an ostensibly inevitable transition to a post?fossil-fuel world.

What’s more, DG kills two birds with one technology: Fossil fuels and utilities, both of which apocalysts reflexively dislike. DG, they believe, will set us free of central coal-fired power plants. After all, coal supplies 55 percent of what goes into the power grid. And that percentage is unlikely to diminish.

Exciting things are happening on the DG front. But they will not have the transformative effect their advocates would have you believe they will. In fact, DG will not replace coal plants, but will complement them and almost certainly increase the use of fossil fuels and likely pit oil (not favored by apocalysts) against natural gas (reluctantly favored by apocalysts).

PC-mania

The PC analogy, while seductive, completely fails. Regardless of the astronomical growth in PC use, the venerable mother of computing’s “heavy iron,” IBM, is far from out of the picture as a major corporation, as its stellar stock performance this decade attests. IBM and its ilk are benefiting from, not being eviscerated by, the information revolution in all its forms.

The data traffic that PCs and the Internet create, and the data appetites expanding applications for computing create, are driving the market toward so-called “super servers”—the 21st-century version of “mainframes.”

But those using the DG: PC analogy usually mean to imply that DG stands on the threshold of rapid cost reductions, emulating the collapsing price and rising performance of PCs over the past 10 years. You hear them warning utilities that central station power plants will follow the fate of slide rules.

The PC price/performance trend arose from advances in the technology used to fabricate integrated circuits. Declining scale and increasing speed equal lower costs. It’s “Moore’s Law.” Still, though today’s desktop is more powerful than yesterday’s mainframe (and today’s mainframes are awesome), Moore’s Law just doesn’t apply to DG and electricity. Sorry.

Power plants have the distinct disadvantage of being constrained by a much longer-standing law, from the realm of physics—the Carnot limit for thermo-dynamic systems, which is the same for all power plants, big and small. Translation: The temperature of combustion sets the limit for the energy efficiency of burning a fuel. Size doesn’t matter; and small actually may be worse. Technologies to tweak efficiency are not only applicable to all sizes, but many of the tweaks are easier and more cost-effective for big iron. This basic tenet holds true for all of the DG technologies based on burning fuels, which are the most likely near-term DG systems.

PCs Ain’t PVs

But what of solar, wind, and fuel cells, the apocalysts’ true DG darlings? After all photovoltaics (PVs) are made from the same basic stuff as microprocessors. Sorry, the analogy still fails.

Sure, PVs are made from silicon (or similar materials) just like microprocessors. Here the similarity ends. To gain greater PC power, engineers make ever-smaller components of increasing density, thus expanding the total number of microscopic electronic devices per square inch.

But you just can’t make a smaller, more efficient PV. Rather, you need more (lots more) square inches—nay, square acres—of silicon devices to gather the fuel, which is in this case the sun’s energy. True the sun is limitless, but it’s just too darn far away to produce high-density power, hence the need for lots of acreage to gather the dilute power. (Not so of course on Mercury, where ponds would be molten metal, not water).

Wind power suffers from the same problem. Greater economy and power don’t come by making windmills smaller—you need bigger ones and more of them, lots more, to power a nation.

Then what of fuel cells, those intriguing devices that use electrochemical magic to make electricity without combustion? In brief: Too expensive and they still need fuel. The materials that make the electrochemical magic happen are expensive. Lower costs face basic, almost intractable (but probably eventually solvable) materials issues.

Fuel cells run on fuel, ideally hydrogen. Virtually all of the solar system’s hydrogen is in the sun: inconvenient. So we can make hydrogen here (expensive and energy-intensive) or use the hydrogen inherent in conventional fuels such as methanol and even gasoline, also a costly exercise. We will, to be sure, eventually see real advances in fuel cells, but they’re no threat today to the gigawatts of conventional generation.

Oil-fired DG

Which brings us to the last category for DG: microturbines and diesel engines. Most of the current market hype surrounds microturbines, which are really just very small jet engines tied to an electric generator. They do work, but they need fuel—usually natural gas, but oil works too. They still cost too much, and despite the hype, you still can’t buy one. Worse yet for efficiency mavens, they are less thermally efficient than central power plants.

That said, it is clear that practical and useful microturbines will emerge soon, and almost certainly in advance of any other new form of DG. The most likely near-term applications for microturbines will be in three areas: where reliability supercedes cost; where power is very expensive, capital scarce, and incremental power needs modest (Costa Rica, for example); and in meeting costly peak demands.

Remember last summer’s astronomical price spike for peak power during the heat wave? Just a few of those go a long way toward covering the higher costs for DG peaking. In all likelihood, the folks installing microturbines to shave peaks will be the same as those operating or selling coal-fired baseload power to create a seamless, blended reliable and economical power source.

Ironically, the only immediately cost-effective DG technology is the venerable diesel engine. So-called diesel-gen sets already exist by the tens of thousands, powering oil fields, small villages, and military bases. Recent advances in materials and controls have made diesels even cheaper and more efficient (better than microturbines), and exceptionally reliable. And you can buy them right now.

Power experts are already forecasting that deregulation will generate a boom in use. They can burn either oil or natural gas, and in most applications use the former. This is clearly not what apocalysts intend deregulation of utilities to effect.

Off-peak coal: a real “killer app”

Perhaps the worst nightmare for coal-haters is the potential of new technologies to achieve cheap off-peak kWh storage—distributed storage. Small, high-tech flywheels look promising (just park them outside beside your central AC unit). You spin them up at night with an electric motor powered by otherwise “wasted” and ultra-economical (maybe 1.5¢/kWh) off-peak power. The motor works as a generator in the daytime, drawing the kinetic energy off the flywheel. Easy, reliable, no new fuels, one moving part. Slick. Uses the cheapest off-peak power too; hydro (and nuclear) in a few places, coal everywhere else.

The capital costs for diesel gen-sets are already a lot lower than for central power plants. Given that, and the low cost of fuel, why isn’t every business making its own power already? Few end-users want the operational and maintenance hassles. Electricity coming off the grid is awfully low-maintenance. The collective cost of tending to millions of distributed (quirky) products remains the showstopper.

We’re all winners

Nonetheless, significant and viable niche markets for DG are inevitable, probably up to 10 percent of total U.S. demand. Once momentum starts building, and reliability grows, emerging technologies can make a noticeable dent in new supply. A critical leap for fuel-based DG will be cost-effective, network-based remote maintenance and monitoring of distributed equipment through advanced sensors, information technology, and neural networks.

Bottom line: DG is coming. The computer analogy does work in one way. Just as PCs are driving demand for mainframes, so too will DG drive demand for larger, more efficient and low-cost central power sources.

——
Physicist Mark P. Mills is a technology strategist and energy consultant and president of the research-consulting firm Mills McCarthy & Associates Inc.

———————————

World Climate Report is the nation’s leading publication covering the breaking news concerning the science and political science of global climate change. Available online at — http://www.nhes.com/home.html

Microturbine Test Programs

/0 Comments/in , /by

Edison Technology Solutions is offering a subscription program to test microturbines. It will involve actual testing on a uniform basis of up to 8 “pre-commercial” and commercial units from different manufacturers. Two units will commence testing early in January.

Subscribers will have timely access to detailed test data and analyses of performance and interconnection issues. While some of this information may eventually become available elsewhere, subscribers will not only receive timely information, but will gain access to technology briefings, operations assessments, and lessons-learned. It will be important to have such information before beginning any kind of commercial installations.

EPRI is cofunding this work (along with CEC and DOE), and will receive general test results under this arrangement. ETS’ program, however includes additional detailed analyses and reports, summarized conclusions, and presentations throughout the testing program that will not be available through other sources.

Contact: Jaime Medina, 626-815-0516, jmedina@edisontec.com
http://www.edisontec.com

—————————

In ’99, EPRI is continuing a microturbine field test program (which began in 1996 with the testing of Capstone early prototype units at Northern States Power and Southern California Edison). Participating host utilities will test one or more microturbines at either laboratory or actual end-user sites. The program will cover all available vendor products (e.g., Capstone, Elliott, Allied-Signal, NREC) and provide information on unit performance as well as interconnection, siting and permitting issues. The data from all of the tests will be shared within the group of host companies. Members of either of the two EPRI DR targets can use tailored collaboration money. Nonmembers can also participate by co-funding. Participants will participate in a user’s group where they will share experiences and insights obtained from operating their units with others in the program.

Contact: Doug Herman, 650-855-1057, dherman@epri.com

Additional information on EPRI’s $5 million/yr DR program (2 targets), including the microturbine tests, can be found at http://www.epri.com/gg/newgen/disgen/index.html
—————————

Hybrid Power Plant (SOFC and MTG)

/0 Comments/in , /by

At the Palm Springs Fuel Cell Seminar (Nov 19), Edison Technology Solutions (ETS) announced plans to demonstrate and lead the commercialization of the first 250 kW “hybrid” generating plant integrating a fuel cell with a microturbine generator. The first unit, with a 200 kW pressurized SOFC and a 50 kW microturbine, will be installed in mid-1999 at the National Fuel Cell Research Center (NFCRC) at UC Irvine. Commercial launch is anticipated for 2001.

The hybrid plant will operate at an efficiency of 60 percent and a cost of $1000/kW, i.e. at lower capital costs than a standalone fuel cell, and with twice the efficiency of a standalone micro-turbine.

A variety of hybrid concepts have been discussed for several years by DOE. ETS is supporting an approach using the pressurized Siemens-Westinghouse tubular SOFC. It uses the microturbine compressor to pressurize the fuel cell to approximately three atmospheres. Exhaust gas at 1,500 deg F from the fuel cell is then used as the motive force for the microturbine, driving both its compressor and generator. While the plant at the NFCRC will run on natural gas, it is flexible to operate with other fuels. The plant has no detectable nitrogen oxide emissions, and greatly reduces carbon dioxide emissions.

Hospitals, hotels, universities and other customers with high load factors are seen as likely users of the hybrid power plant. ETS will work with utilities and energy service companies to commercialize and deploy the technology.

ETS is offering a proposition to utilities to become part of a focused fast-track commercialization program. From 5-10 participants will provide development funding in exchange for access to technical information and priority rights to commercialization opportunities. Based on earlier discussions with several prospective customers for the program, ETS is proposing a graduated series of commitment levels. Companies which commit to the highest level now would be first in line for commercialization rights.

By design, the program will remain flexible as to which brand of microturbine can be used, though the first plant is planned around a Northern Research unit. For the fuel cell, the entire program is integrally connected to the Westinghouse SOFC.

ETS has an exclusive license to a recent patent with broad claims focused on high speed turbines and pressurized fuel cell operation. ETS also has exclusive worldwide marketing rights to the hybrid power plant (based on the Westinghouse SOFC) up to 500 kW.

Contact: Jaime Medina, Edison Technology Solutions
626-815-0516, jmedina@edisontec.com
http://www.edisontec.com

——————————————————————-
US 5811201: Power generation system utilizing turbine and fuel cell
Inventor(s): Skowronski; Mark J. , Walnut, CA
Applicant(s): Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA
Issued/Filed Sept. 22, 1998 / Aug. 16, 1996
Abstract: A system for generating electricity comprises a fuel cell, a heating stage, and an integral, power generator. The power generator comprises a compressor, an electricity generator and a turbine. Hot exhaust gas from the fuel cell is used for driving the turbine, which in turn drives the generator and the compressor. Both the fuel cell and the generator produce electricity. The compressor is used for compressing air for use in the fuel cell. A portion of the waste heat from the turbine drive gas is used for preheating the air utilized in the fuel cell.

————

(Edison Technology Solutions, a non-regulated company of Edison International, develops and markets new technologies, products, and services for the emerging energy and electricity marketplace.)