Yakutat, Alaska

Improve fuel efficiency

& reduce CO2 emissions
for diesel generators

Bowman
Bowman PowerTurboGen
Group Ltd www.bowmanpower.com
# 1 in Advanced
Telephone. +44 (0)23 8023Exhaust
6700 Energy Recovery
Project Overview
City of Yakutat

Southern community on the Gulf of Alaska.

There are no roads leading into or out of Yakutat. All

commerce and access occurs via air or sea.

The borough supports approximately 700 people

Summer time average 16C Winter time average -30C

There is a need to reduce the amount of fuel used and

associated transportation costs plus minimize on going
operational & new project implementation risk.

The objective of this presentation is to suggest

ways to save fuel for the community

2
System Overview
Diesel Power Plant
*Assumed arrangement from information
obtained from the internet
Four (4) machines with installed capacity
over 4MW

Average annual load 794kW, with a peak of

1,500kW There is a +30% & -30% variation in
a typical daily profile.

Genset #1 is a CAT 3516 rated at 1200 kW

Genset #2 is a CAT 3516B rated at 1322 kW
Genset #3 is a CAT 3512B rated at 880 kW
Genset #4 is a CAT 3508B rated at 600 kW

The CAT 3516B is the primary genset. The 3512B and

3508B gensets operate on an as-needed basis when the
CAT 3512B (standby)

CAT 3508B (standby)

electric load exceeds the 3516B capacity and when the
CAT 3516B (duty)

3516B is down for maintenance. The 3516 is nearing the

end of its useful life and is thus used sparingly.
CAT 3516 (old)

3
Savings Options

1. Retrofit Existing CAT3516B with 2. Replace with New More Efficient CHP
Turbo-generators (TGs) TriPak Machines + TGs

Recover waste energy from the exhaust and turn into Increase the number of steps in the load management to
power plus waste heat from the exhaust & engine improve part load performance with the latest engines
jackets for domestic hot water and HVAC. including turbo-generators on the exhaust plus heat
recovery.

4
Savings Options

1. Retrofit Existing CAT 3516B with Turbo- 2. Replace with New More Efficient CHP
generators (TGs) & heat recovery TriPak Machines + TGs

x2

5
Power Demand Overview

As the operating profile of the site is relatively known

from the EPRI - WP- 006-Alaska report from December
2009 the following load bins have been extracted from
the available data.

Power Number of Percentage

Demand Hours

500 kW 980 11.19%

700 kW 3680 42.01%

900 kW 3480 39.87%

1,200 kW 600 6.85%

1,400 kW 20 0.23%

which gives an average load of around 793kW.

Accurately knowing the profile is the key first

step in saving fuel.

6
Results of Options

Fuel Consumed (litres)

Delivered Hourly CAT3516B TG Enhanced TG Retrofit to
Power Bins (low fuel) TriPak CAT 3516B
500 980 151,041 115,373 138,203
700 3,680 735,387 602,634 672,879
900 3,480 854,450 732,326 781,821
1,200 600 188,625 168,351 172,592
1,400 20 7,217 6,550 6,620
8,760
Total Fuel Consumed 1,936,721 1,625,235 1,772,115
(llitres)
Fuel Saved 311,486 164,605
* Based on 8,760 hours of operation 16% 8.5%
7
Additional Results of Options

Further fuel savings are available with heat recovery

It was reported in the EPRI - WP- 006-Alaska report
from December 2009 that the total heating fuel used in
2007 was 343,000 US gallons, which is 1,296,540 litres.

Option Estimated Annual Fuel

Usable Heat Savings**
(kWt) (litres)
TG Enhanced
TriPak
741 534,632
TG retrofit to
existing CAT 723 521,645
3516B

** Based on 9.9kWh per litre heating valve of diesel & 70% boiler efficiency at 5,000
hours

8
System Implementation Option 1

The retrofit would only be to the CAT3516B genset #2. While this operation is being done genset #3 & 4 (CAT3512B
& 3508B) would run with the old CAT 3516 acting as the back-up machine. Once the retrofit testing and
commissioning is complete operations shall then return to the previous sequence with genset #2 CAT3516B as the
priority engine.

End result

TG Retrofit to CAT 3516B

litres 3,500 4,500 5,500 6,500 7,500 8,000 8,760
Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours

Fuel Saved 65,767 84,558 103,348 122,139 140,929 150,324 164,605

9
System Implementation Option 2

With this option the existing genset #1(old CAT3516) and genset #4 (CAT3508B) would be replaced with two (2) new
TG enhanced packages, which would provide N+1 capacity for the peak load (1,500kW) while running as the priority
units for operations > 7,500 hours per year. The lead will be alternated between the new gensets #1 & 4 to balance
the run hours. The existing gensets #2 & 3 would function only as standby units and operate < 1,260 hours shared
between these units. The old CAT3516 & CAT3508B units can be removed from the site.

10
System Implementation Option 2
System arrangement now close to 2(N+1) for 99.995% uptime

End result

TG Enhanced TriPak
litres 3,500 4,500 5,500 6,500 7,500 8,000 8,760
Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours

Fuel Saved 124,452 160,010 195,568 231,125 266,683 284,462 311,486

11
Option Review

Option Advantages Disadvantages

Approximately Ten (10) days down-time for installation,

testing & commissioning per machine
Short term operations interference when commissioning
and bringing units back online as not fully load tested
Extensive site visits required for inspections prior to visit
No adjustments needed to the fuel supply lines
1. TG Retrofit to for final installation
No adjustments to power cabling
CAT3512B Highest number of external parties entering the site ( five
No external works required
(5) technical persons)
Highest potential for delays due to material adjustments
Potential resistance from generator suppliers
Base units are old and could be susceptible to failure
even though the TGs are good for operation

Greatest fuel saving potential

Easiest to include heat recovery system for further
fuel savings
System is pre packaged and can be load
tested/pre-commissioned off site including training Adjustments required to fuel supply lines, that will now run
and then issued to on-site personnel for easy hook externally
2. New TriPak
up by them to existing panels External space required for units
Units c/w TGs System could effectively have 2(N+1) arrangement Foundations required for units (offset by using screw piles to
for extra redundancy & availablity minimize environmental impact)
Least down-time to install ( 4 hours per unit)
Least delay risk or impact on existing operations
Least impact on existing units operation or
warranty

12
Conclusions

1. Providing new TriPak units c/w TGs provides the best

fuel savings & easiest implementation (speed & ease)

2. Up to 311,485 litres could be saved per year using the

TG enhanced TriPaks (400 tons of CO2 per MW per year)

3. Great potential exists for heat recovery to save up to

534,622 litres of heating oil per year (combined heat & power)

4. Three (3) to five (5) year payback (strong economic sense)

Identify & Plan Create & Design Invest & Build Operate & Maintain
13
Reduce Carbon Footprint
enhance profitability
6 improved
through 8% fuelfuel
savings or
efficiency 5% increase in power

3 to 5 year payback

Thank
reduced CO2 emissions
you

proven reliable technology

ERS Technology Ltd.

9701-201 street Langley BC, Canada.V1M-3E7.
Tel 604-881-2300 Fax 604-881-2301 www.energyrecoverysystems.ca
14