Micro Turbines - Innovative Concepts PDF

WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement

on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material
Microturbines: Assessment of Innovative Cycles and

Advanced Concepts
A Product of EPRIsolutions, Inc.
1000770
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance
with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only
copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice
supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices
embedded in the document prior to publication.
10093036
10093036
Microturbines: Assessment of Innovative Cycles and
Advanced Concepts
1000770
Technical Progress, December 2000
EPRIsolutions Project Manager
D. Herman
EPRIsolutions • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10414, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
10093036
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT
OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY EPRISOLUTIONS, INC. NEITHER
EPRISOLUTIONS, THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI), ANY MEMBER
OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON
ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRISOLUTIONS OR ANY
EPRISOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS
REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
Nexant, Inc.
This is an EPRIsolutions Level 2 report. A Level 2 report is intended as an informal report of

continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRIsolutions technical
report.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins
Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (800) 313-3774.
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
EPRIsolutions is a registered service mark of EPRIsolutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2000 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved
10093036
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Nexant, Inc.
45 Fremont Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2210
Principal Investigator
T. P. Chen
This report describes research sponsored by EPRIsolutions.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Microturbines: Assessment of Innovative Cycles and Advanced Concepts, EPRIsolutions,

Palo Alto, CA: 2000. 1000770.
iii
10093036
10093036
REPORT SUMMARY
Background
Microturbines are currently in the initial stages of commercialization. To assess their future
market potential, this study analyzed several innovative applications and technical
improvements: a low-cost microturbine unit for peak-shaving; a microturbine-PEM fuel cell
hybrid in which the fuel cell provides high efficiency base load and the micrturbine low-cost
load following, a microturbine integrated with storage for grid-independent and uninterruptible
power supply, a microturbine integrated with an absorption chiller to improve thermal efficiency;
turbine inlet air cooling to improve performance on hot days; aspirating fuel into the turbine inlet
to avoid use of a fuel gas compressor; ceramic components to improve efficiency and catalytic
combustion to reduce emissions.
Objective
To evaluate the economic and market potential for various microturbine applications and
technology improvements.
Approach
System simulation models for both microturbines and PEM fuel cells were developed to estimate
performance and costs. Relevant developers and vendors for auxilliary equipment and processes
were contacted to provide input for design and cost estimates. Economic case studies were
prepared for each application or technology improvement.
Results
The assessment shows that microturbines can be competitive for peak shaving, load following,
extension of UPS ride-through time, and providing cooling via absorption chilling. The
economics are particularly attractive when complimentary equipment or processes are used, such
as evaporative cooling of inlet air. Two technology improvements currently being pursued by
microturbine developers/manufacturers, use of ceramic components and catalytic combustion,
were found to hold promise for efficiency increases and emission reduction, but they still need
further development before they can be commercially viable.
In additional to providing general conclusions and recommendations for each market application
or technology improvement, this study also provides easy lookup charts for users to quickly
determine the value of a given market application based on their specific load profile,
v
10093036
electricity/fuel pricing structure, and investment return criteria. Equipment or system
performance and cost curves (as a function of capacity, ambient temperature, and other operating
parameters), assessment methodologies and calculation formulas are provided so that readers can
conduct their own project-specific analyses.
EPRI Solutions Perspectives
This report is a sequel to TR-114182, “Assessment of Microturbines as Distributed Generators,”

in which the performance, cost claims and commercialization timelines of microturbines were
independently assessed. This report identifies and evaluates some promising development and
application paths that the technology might take. Technological improvements and clever
combinations of existing equpment could make microturbines more economically viable and
thus expand their ultimate market potential.
vi
10093036
EPRIsolutions Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
Microturbines are currently in the initial stages of commercialization. To assess their future
market potential, this study analyzed several innovative applications and technical
improvements: a low-cost microturbine unit for peak-shaving; a microturbine-PEM fuel cell
hybrid in which the fuel cell provides high efficiency base load and the micrturbine low-cost
load following, a microturbine integrated with storage for grid-independent and uninterruptible
power supply, a microturbine integrated with an absorption chiller to improve thermal efficiency;
turbine inlet air cooling to improve performance on hot days; aspirating fuel into the turbine inlet
to avoid use of a fuel gas compressor; ceramic components to improve efficiency and catalytic
combustion to reduce emissions. The assessment shows that microturbines can be competitive
for peak shaving, load following, extension of UPS ride-through time, and providing cooling via
absorption chilling. The economics are particularly attractive when complimentary equipment or
processes are used, such as evaporative cooling of inlet air. Two technology improvements
currently being pursued by microturbine developers/manufacturers, use of ceramic components
and catalytic combustion, were found to hold promise for efficiency increases and emission
reduction, but they still need further development before they can be commercially viable.
vii
10093036
10093036
CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1-1

Background ........................................................................................................................ 1-1
Objective ............................................................................................................................ 1-1
Market Applications/Technology Improvements Selected for Evaluation........................ 1-1
Approach ....................................................................................................................... 1-2
Major Findings.................................................................................................................... 1-2
Use of Microturbines for Peak-Shaving.......................................................................... 1-2
Hybrid Use of Microturbines and PEM Fuel Cells........................................................... 1-2
Hybrid Use of Microturbines and Battery Energy Storage .............................................. 1-3
Integrated Use of Microturbines and Absorption Chillers for Cooling Applications.......... 1-3
Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines ......................................................................................... 1-3
Miscellaneous Technology Improvements to Microturbines ........................................... 1-3
2 MICROTURBINE FOR PEAK SHAVING............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Survey of Demand Charges ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Microturbine Performance and Cost Characteristics ..................................................... 2-2
2.2.1 Turbine Performance ............................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.2 Turbine Capital and O&M Costs............................................................................ 2-6
2.2.3 Effects of Ambient Temperature............................................................................ 2-8
2.3 Icebox Performance and Cost Characteristics .............................................................2-10
2.3.1 Turbine Performance with Icebox.........................................................................2-10
2.3.2 Icebox Performance.............................................................................................2-12
2.3.3 Icebox Capital and O&M Costs ............................................................................2-14
2.4 Economic Analysis Results..........................................................................................2-16
2.4.1 Competitiveness with Grid Power ........................................................................2-16
2.4.2 Competitiveness with Natural Gas Fired IC Engines ............................................2-23
Comparison of Efficiency..........................................................................................2-24
Comparison of Footprint, Weight, and Startup Time.................................................2-24
ix
10093036
Comparison of Capacity De-rating ...........................................................................2-24

Comparison of Costs................................................................................................2-25
Comparison of Emissions.........................................................................................2-26
Comparison of Maintenance Requirements..............................................................2-26
Conclusions .............................................................................................................2-26
2.4.4 Value of Using Evaporative Cooler ......................................................................2-27
3 HYBRID USE OF MICROTURBINE AND PEM FUEL CELLS............................................. 3-1

3.1 PEM Fuel Cell Performance and Costs ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1.1 Performance ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Capital and O&M Costs......................................................................................... 3-5
3.2 Microturbine Performance and Costs............................................................................ 3-6
3.3 Hybrid System Performance and Costs ........................................................................ 3-6
3.4 Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................... 3-8
4 MICROTURBINE--BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE HYBRID FOR UPS AND GRID-

INDEPENDENCE APPLICATIONS ........................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Performance and Costs of Applicable Battery Technologies......................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Types of Batteries ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1.2. Battery Capacity Rating ....................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.3 Battery Life............................................................................................................ 4-3
4.1.4 Total System and Its Efficiency ............................................................................. 4-4
4.1.5 Battery System Capital and O&M Costs................................................................ 4-5
4.2 Performance and Costs of Applicable Microturbine Technologies ................................ 4-9
4.3 Economics of Load Leveling Application......................................................................4-11
4.4 Economics of UPS Application ....................................................................................4-14
5 FUEL-ASPIRATED MICROTURBINE ................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Performance................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Economics.................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.2.1 Capital and O&M Cost Estimates.......................................................................... 5-8
5.2.2 Cost of Electricity .................................................................................................5-10
5.3 Technical Risks ...........................................................................................................5-12
5.3.1 Flammability Limits ..............................................................................................5-12
5.3.2 Auto-Ignition Temperature ...................................................................................5-13
5.3.3 Ignition in the Combustor .....................................................................................5-14
x
10093036
6 INTEGRATION OF MICROTURBINES AND CHILLERS .................................................... 6-1

6.1 System Configuration ................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Turbine Performance and Costs ................................................................................... 6-3
6.3 Chiller Performance and Costs ..................................................................................... 6-3
6.3.1 Absorption Chiller.................................................................................................. 6-3
6.3.2 Vapor Compression Chiller ................................................................................... 6-7
6.4 Case Study................................................................................................................... 6-7
6.5 Development Opportunities .........................................................................................6-12
7 MISCELLANEOUS MICROTURBINE IMPROVEMENTS .................................................... 7-1

7.1 Ceramic Turbines ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 Development Status.............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Applicability for Microturbines................................................................................ 7-3
7.2 Catalytic Combustion.................................................................................................... 7-4
7.2.1 Development Status.............................................................................................. 7-4
7.2.2 Technical Issues ................................................................................................... 7-4
7.2.3 Combustor Design ................................................................................................ 7-4
7.2.4 Economic Comparison with SCR .......................................................................... 7-5
xi
10093036
10093036
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Recuperated Microturbine (Process Flows Given under

ISO Conditions) ............................................................................................ 2-3
Figure 2-2 Non-Recuperated Microturbine (Process Flows Given under

ISO Conditions) ............................................................................................ 2-4
Figure 2-3 Thermal Efficiency and Heat Rat of Non-Recuperated Microturbine as

Function of Ambient Temperature................................................................. 2-9
Figure 2-4 Capital Cost (Installed) and O&M Cost of Non-Recuperated

Microturbine as Function of Ambient Temperature ....................................... 2-10
Figure 2-5 Microturbine with Inlet Air Cooling by Icebox ............................................... 2-11
Figure 2-6 Example Icemakers from Morris ................................................................... 2-13
Figure 2-7 Icebox Capital Costs..................................................................................... 2-15
Figure 2-8 Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 7 Year Payback and

100 F Ambient temperature .......................................................................... 2-17

100 F Ambient temperature .......................................................................... 2-17

59 F Ambient temperature ............................................................................ 2-18

59 F Ambient temperature ............................................................................ 2-18
Figure 2-12 Load Profiles Before and After Peak Shaving for the Month August
in the Example Case (Dotted Line: Before Shaving, Solid Line:
After Shaving)............................................................................................... 2-20
Figure 2-13 Optimum Turbine Capacity for Peak Shaving in the Example Case.............. 2-23
Figure 2-14 Comparison of the costs Between Icebox and Purchase of

Additional Turbines ....................................................................................... 2-27
Figure 2-15 Microturbine with Inlet Air Cooling by Evaporative Cooler............................. 2-28
xiii
10093036
Figure 2-16 Cost Effectiveness of Evaporative Cooler as a Function of

Air Relative Humidity .................................................................................... 2-30
Figure 3-1 Process Configuration and Major Process Streams of PEM

Fuel Cells...................................................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Hybrid System of PEM Fuel Cells with Microturbines .................................. 3-7
Figure 3-3 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Unit (7 year payback, 0.25 base load to peak demand ratio) ........................ 3-10

Unit (7 year payback, 0.5 base load to peak demand ratio) .......................... 3-10



Unit (3 year payback, 0.5 base load to peak demand ratio) .......................... 3-12

Figure 4-1 Lead-Acid Battery Capacity (VRLA Type) as Function of

Discharge Time............................................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4-2 Cost of Power Electronic/Control System in UPS Unit ................................. 4-5
Figure 4-3 Installed Battery System Cost as Function of Required

Discharge Time (Load Leveling Application) ................................................ 4-6
Figure 4-4 Installed Battery System Cost as Function of Required

Discharge Time (UPS Application)................................................................ 4-7
Figure 4-5 Installed Cost of Battery & Its Housing as Function of

Battery Discharge Time ............................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-6 Battery Replacement Cost as Function of Required

Discharge Time ............................................................................................ 4-8
Figure 4-7 Battery Replacement Cost as Function of Required

Discharge Time............................................................................................. 4-11
Figure 4-8 Breakeven Ride Through Time Between Hybrid and “UPS
Only” Systems .............................................................................................. 4-15
xiv
10093036
Figure 5-1 Recuperated Microturbine with Fuel Compression........................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2 Recuperated Microturbine without Fuel Compression

(Fuel-Aspirated Turbine) ............................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-3 Non-Recuperated Microturbine with Fuel Compression ................................ 5-4
Figure 5-4 Non-Recuperated Microturbine without Fuel Compression

(Fuel-Aspirated Turbine) ............................................................................... 5-5
Figure 5-5 Costs of Electricity for Regular and Fuel-Aspirated Micro-

Turbines as a Function of Natural Gas Cost (Recuperated
Cycle at 80% On-stream Factor) .................................................................. 5-11
Figure 5-6 Auto-Ignition Temperature of Methane ......................................................... 5-14
Figure 6-1 Integrated System of Microturbine with Absorption Chiller ............................ 6-2
Figure 6-2 Basic Principle of Single-Effect Lithium Bromide Absorption

Chiller ........................................................................................................... 6-4
Figure 6-3 Basic Principle of Double-Effect Lithium Bromide Absorption

Chiller ........................................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6-4 Installed Costs of Chillers as Function of Capacity ....................................... 6-6
Figure 6-5 Peak Electric Load Profile of a Large Office Building in

Southern US ................................................................................................. 6-7
Figure 6-6 Air Conditioning Load and On-Line Time as a Function of

Ambient Temperature for a Large Office Building in Southern US ................ 6-8
Figure 6-7 Example Real Time Pricing as a Function of Ambient Temperature ............. 6-9
Figure 6-8 Cost of Electricity in an Example Summer Day............................................. 6-9
Figure 6-9 Layout of the Common Package of Microturbines and

Absorption Chiller ......................................................................................... 6-10
xv
10093036
10093036
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Demand Charges to Commercial/Light Industry Customers by

Selected Utilities ........................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2 Major System Parameters Assumed in the Estimate of Microturbine

Performance ................................................................................................. 2-5
Table 2-3 System Performance Comparison at ISO Rating Between

Recuperated and Non-Recuperated Microturbines ....................................... 2-6
Table 2-4 Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Between Recuperated

and Non-Recuperated Microturbines ............................................................ 2-7
Table 2-5 Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Between Recuperated

and Non-Recuperated Microturbines ............................................................ 2-8
Table 2-6 Comparison of Microturbine Performance with and without Inlet

Air Cooling by Icebox.................................................................................... 2-12
Table 2-7 Icebox Sizing ................................................................................................ 2-12
Table 2-8 Performance of Icebox.................................................................................. 2-14
Table 2-9 Icebox Capital and O&M Costs..................................................................... 2-15
Table 2-10 Example Peak Shaving for a Medium Size Office Building in
Southeast Region of US ............................................................................... 2-20
Table 2-11 Net Annual Cost of Peak Shaving for the Example Case
(Basis: 7 Year Payback, $4/million Btu Natural Gas Price,
5 cents/kWh Energy Charge of Electricity)................................................... 2-21
Table 2-12 Demand Charge Saving by Peak Shaving for the Example Case ................. 2-22
Table 2-13 Economics of Peak Shaving at Different Turbine Capacities

for the Example Case ................................................................................... 2-22
Table 2-14 Performance and Cost of Microturbines with Natural Gas

Fired IC Engine Gen Sets ............................................................................. 2-25
xvii
10093036
Table 2-15 Comparison of Microturbine Performance with and without

Inlet Air Cooling by Evaporative .................................................................... 2-29
Table 3-1 Major System Parameters of PEM Fuel Cells ............................................... 3-3
Table 3-2 Performance Summary of PEM Fuel Cells.................................................... 3-4
Table 3-3 Capital and O&M Costs of 50 kW PEM Fuel Cell Unit .................................. 3-5
Table 3-4 Performance and Costs of Hybrid Systems of PEM Fuel Cells
with Non-Recuperated Microturbines............................................................ 3-8
Table 3-5 Performance and Costs of Hybrid Systems of PEM Fuel Cells
with Recuperated Microturbines.................................................................... 3-8
Table 4-1 Comparison of Various Types of Battery ...................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 Weight and Physical Sizes of Example Battery-Based UPS Units ................ 4-4
Table 4-3 Micro-Turbine Performance and Costs (Under ISO Conditions) ................... 4-9
Table 4-4 Comparison of Costs of Electricity for Various Combined Uses

of Microturbine and Battery System ($4/Million Btu Fuel Cost,
7 Year Payback) ........................................................................................... 4-13
Table 5-1 Major System Parameters Assumed in the Estimate of

Microturbine Performance............................................................................. 5-6
Table 5-2 System Performance Comparison Between Regular and

Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines ........................................................................ 5-7
Table 5-3 Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Between Regular and
Fuel-Aspirated Micro-Turbines...................................................................... 5-9
Table 5-4 Comparison of Cost of Electricity Between Regular and Fuel-

Aspirated Micro-Turbines for Recuperated Cycle Operation at
80% On-stream Factor and $4/million Btu Natural Gas Cost ........................ 5-10
Table 6-1 Comparison of Microturbine Performance with and without Inlet

Air Cooling by Chilled Water from Absorption Chiller .................................... 6-3
Table 6-2 Performance of Integrated system of Microturbine and

Absorption Chiller ......................................................................................... 6-6
Table 6-3 Installed Costs and O&M Costs of Conventional HVAC System
(Two Gas Compression Chillers) and Hybrid System (1 Integrated
Unit of Microturbine/absorption Chiller, 1 Gas Compression Chiller)............. 6-10
xviii
10093036
Table 6-4 Comparison of Annual Costs (Excluding Capital Recovery)

Between Hybrid and Conventional HVAC Systems........................................ 6-11
Table 6-5 Payback Analysis of Using the Hybrid HVAC System .................................. 6-12
Table 7-1 Performance and Cost Comparison Between Catalytic

Combustion and SCR ................................................................................... 7-5
xix
10093036
10093036
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Microturbines are currently in the initial stages of commercialization. To assess their ultimate
economic potential, this study analyzed several innovative market applications and technical
improvements.
Objective
To evaluate the economic and market potential for various microturbine applications and
technology improvements.
Market Applications/Technology Improvements Selected for Evaluation
To meet the objectives above, the following market applications and technology improvements
were selected for evaluation:
• Use of microturbines as a peak-shaving units, including integration with an ice maker or

an evaporative cooler to increase the turbine power output during hot days
• Hybrid use of microturbines and PEM fuel cells in which the microturbine provides heat
for fuel reforming in the PEM fuel cells. The lower cost microturbine would be used for
load following while the higher efficiency PEM fuel cell would be used for base load.
• Hybrid use of microturbines and battery energy storage, in which the battery provides
load leveling for primary/continuous power applications and the microturbine provides
extended ride-through time for UPS applications.
• Integrated use of a microturbine and an absorption chiller to provide cooling for HVAC
applications
• A microturbine technology improvement, in which the fuel gas compressor is eliminated

by aspirating fuel directly into the turbine air intake
• Other microturbine technology improvements, including use of ceramic components to

increase turbine firing temperature and efficiency, and use of catalytic combustion to
reduce turbine emissions
1-1
10093036
Executive Summary
Many of the hybrid uses above also include heat integration or common packaging, if feasible, to
further enhance the economics. The economics of the market applications were determined by
their competitiveness with grid power and other distributed generation technologies, such as gas
engines and battery based UPS systems.
Approach
This study provides a quantitative assessment using system simulation models for both
microturbines and PEM fuel cells to estimate performance and costs. Relevant developers and
vendors for other equipment or processes involved were contacted to obtain their input for the
design and cost estimate.
In additional to providing general conclusions and recommendations for each market application
or technology improvement, this study also provides easy lookup charts for users to quickly
determine the value of a given market application based on specific load profiles, electricity/fuel
pricing structures, and investment return criteria. Equipment or system performance and cost
curves as a function of capacity, ambient temperature, and other operating parameters and
assessment methodologies or calculation formula for each market application are also provided
in case users want to conduct more rigorous analyses.
Major Findings
Use of Microturbines for Peak-Shaving
A sample survey of demand charges in US shows that annual charges can range from $75-
200/kW/y. This report shows that microturbines as peak shavers can be cost competitive at
$110-420/kW/y, depending on the peak shaving load factor, grid power energy charges, fuel
cost, and requirements on investment payback. Thus, microturbines can be cost effective for
peak shaving in some locations. A comparison with gas reciprocating engines shows
microturbines are only slightly more expensive. Further cost reduction in the future could make
microturbines very competitive with gas engines.
The analysis also shows that the use of an icemaker to cool the turbine inlet air for increasing the
power production during hot days is economical only for peak shaving units larger than 4 MW
due to the high cost of small icemakers. An evaporative cooler, however, is quite cost effective
in regions with dry air.
Hybrid Use of Microturbines and PEM Fuel Cells
This hybrid system uses high efficiency PEM fuel cells for base load and low cost microturbines
for load following so as to combine the best attributes of both, and also to provide the flexibility
to be grid independent. The assessment shows that heat integration in which the turbine waste
heat is used for fuel reforming can significantly increase the PEM fuel cell efficiency, from
36.6% to 41.8% if recuperated turbines are used, and to 51.1% if non-recuperated turbines are
used (all LHV). The assessment also shows that the hybrid system can provide lower cost
1-2
10093036
Executive Summary
electricity than the turbine only case for most load profiles, and over a wide range of payback
periods and fuel costs.
Hybrid Use of Microturbines and Battery Energy Storage
In this hybrid, the battery can complement the microturbine for primary/continuous power
applications by providing load leveling to reduce the turbine generation capacity; and the
microturbine can complement the battery for UPS applications by extending the ride-through
time.
For the load leveling case, the analysis shows that the cost savings on turbine capacity reduction
is not sufficient to compensate for the cost of the battery system if the time span of peak load is
long. However, if the load profile has a “needle” type of peak, the hybrid system could be
economical. For the UPS application, the analysis shows that the microturbine can be cost
competitive with a battery based unit when the ride-through time required is more than one hour
for a 7-year payback, and 1.5 hours for a 3-year payback.
Integrated Use of Microturbines and Absorption Chillers for Cooling Applications
This integrated system is an effective way to use turbine waste heat. It also allows the chiller to
cool the turbine inlet air to increase the generation capacity and to reduce the power demand of
air conditioning when electricity prices surge during hot days. A combined system can be
packaged for lower cost, and can be distributed by the existing HVAC sales and service
infrastructure. The analysis shows this integrated system is cost effective for users who pay high
electricity costs, either through time of use rates or demand charges, during hot days. A case
study based on a large commercial building with real time pricing shows that the payback of the
integrated system could be less than 4 years. The payback would be shorter when peak prices are
higher than assumed in the example.
Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines
The analysis shows fuel aspiration can improve the turbine efficiency and reduce the capital cost
significantly and thus it deserves further attention.
Miscellaneous Technology Improvements to Microturbines
Two improvements were analyzed: use of ceramic components to increase turbine firing
temperature and efficiency, and use of catalytic combustion to reduce turbine emissions. The
analysis shows ceramic components have made significant advances in recent years but still
cannot demonstrate the required durability for commercial applications. Analysis of catalytic
combustion shows that the technology has reached initial commercial application and could
compete with SCR if the catalyst life were longer than it is currently.
1-3
10093036
10093036
2
MICROTURBINE FOR PEAK SHAVING
In this section, the economics of microturbines as peak shaving units was assessed. The turbine
cost was compared with savings on the peak demand charges. The competitiveness with natural
gas fired IC engines in terms of cost, emissions, physical size and weight was also analyzed. In
addition, the value of adding an icebox or evaporative cooler to cool the turbine inlet air on hot
days to achieve higher turbine power output was assessed.
The analysis shows that microturbines could be cost effective for peak shaving but cannot
compete with natural gas fired engine gen sets based on the current cost. The icebox was found
to be uneconomical to use, except for very large installations (>4 MW). The evaporative cooler
was found to be very cost effective for regions with dry air. Details of the analysis are provided
below, including a sample survey of peak demand charges in US, performance/cost
characteristics of microturbines, iceboxes, and evaporative coolers, and a summary of the
economic analysis.
2.1 Survey of Demand Charges
Electricity rate structures in the US are very complex and vary from utility to utility. Electric rate
tariffs usually contain both energy and demand charges. Energy charges are typically adjusted
periodically for fuel price fluctuations. Demand charges are sometimes further broken down into
generation, transmission, and distribution cost components. Demand charges may also include
penalties for low power factors. Both the energy and demand charges can be a function of
customer classes, seasons, and time of use in a day (peak, shoulder, and off-peak periods) or in a
week (weekdays, weekends, and holidays). Due to de-regulation, some utilities also offer real
time pricing, which presents a similar but more easily comprehensible pricing structure to the
traditional demand charge.
Summarized in Table 2-1 is a sample survey of the demand charges of several utilities in various
regions of US for commercial/light industrial customers. The summer months, during which the
demand charges are usually higher, can be as long as May to October or as short as June to
September. The demand charge can be levied for each of the peak, shoulder, and off-peak
periods of the day or simply a flat rate throughout the year. Demand charges can also be divided
into tiers based on the magnitude of the demand. The demand can be defined as simply the
highest peak in a month or as a composite calculation that factors in the demands of previous
months. Overall, the accumulated demand charges over twelve months of a year typically vary
from $70-200/kW/y.
2-1
10093036
Microturbine For Peak Shaving

Table 2-1
Demand Charges to Commercial/Light Industry Customers by Selected Utilities
Utility Demand Charges Demand Charges Accumulated Demand

(winter) (summer) Charges Annually
$/kW/month $/kW/month $/kW/y
Duke Power 5.75-8.7 10.51-14.17 88-137
Ohio Power 13.25-15.62 13.25-15.26 159-183
Pacific Gas & Electric 5.2-6.2 18.6-19.65 142-155
Boston Edison 3.67-10.53 11.25-22.57 75-187
Con Edison (NY) ----- 18.78 – 31.79 113-191
Texas Utilities Electric 7.63 7.63 92
So. California Edison 5.4-6.4 13.15-20.35 96-133
Georgia Power 5-14.17 14.75-18.93 100-189
2.2 Microturbine Performance and Cost Characteristics

As capital cost is more important than efficiency for peak shaving applications, the microturbine
considered for this evaluation is not recuperated. The performance and cost of the non-
recuperated turbine are estimated based on system parameters similar to those used in a previous
EPRI analysis on recuperated microturbines1.
2.2.1 Turbine Performance

Shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2 are the process configurations and major process streams for the
recuperated and non-recuperated turbines operated under ISO conditions. The system parameters
used and the turbine performance at ISO rating of these two turbines are compared in Tables 2-2
and 2-3 respectively. The performance of the recuperated turbine case duplicates that used in the
previous EPRI study as mentioned above. A microturbine simulation program was developed
specifically for this study to estimate the performance. The rationale for system parameter
selections has been discussed in the previously cited EPRI study.
Both the recuperated and non-recuperated turbines are based on 50 kW net power output under
ISO conditions before parasitic power for the fuel compressor is subtracted. In both cases, the
filtered air is used to cool the high-speed generator before it is fed to the turbine compressor.
This eliminates a separate cooling system for the generator. Most of the current microturbines
have incorporated this design.
1
EPRI Report TR-114182, Assessment of Microturbines as Distributed Generators, December
1999.
2-2
10093036
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
7
combustor
natural 1
gas 8
high speed
generator
9
power compressor expander
5
power
conditioner 10
4 11
6
recuperator
12
3 air
air filter turbine
exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Compressed Air to Air to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to Recuperator
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Generator Air Recuperator Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Recuperator Exhaust
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 77.26 77.26 77.26 77.26 77.26 76.13 76.13 76.13 76.13 76.13
O2, vol% 20.67 20.67 20.67 20.67 20.67 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.41
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96
Sulfur Compounds, ppm 4.00
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0086 0.0086 0.9667 0.9667 0.9667 0.9667 0.9667 0.9752 0.9752 0.9752 0.9752 0.9752
Total, kg/sec 0.0039 0.0039 0.4389 0.4389 0.4389 0.4389 0.4389 0.4427 0.4427 0.4427 0.4427 0.4427
Total, SCFM 11.36 11.36 769.00 769.00 769.00 769.00 769.00 780.65 780.65 780.65 780.65 780.65
Total, ACFM 8.48 2.88 767.52 792.04 298.46 314.17 579.31 853.27 861.89 2,347.97 2,371.69 1,519.20
Temperature, F 60 390 59 70 425 425 1,091 1,700 1,700 1,203 1,203 552
Temperature, C 16 199 15 21 218 218 588 927 927 651 651 289
Pressure, psia 19.70 94.70 14.70 14.55 64.48 61.25 58.19 55.86 55.31 15.63 15.47 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 6.44 1.00 0.99 4.39 4.17 3.96 3.80 3.76 1.06 1.05 1.00
Figure 2-1
Recuperated Microturbine (Process Flows Given under ISO Conditions)
2-3
10093036
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
6 7
natural 1
combustor
gas
high speed
generator
5 8
power
conditioner 9
10
3 air turbine
air filter exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Compressed Air to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Generator Air Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Atmosphere
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 77.26 77.26 77.26 77.26 75.02 75.02 75.02 75.02
O2, vol% 20.67 20.67 20.67 20.67 14.20 14.20 14.20 14.20
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0141 0.0141 0.7894 0.7894 0.7894 0.7894 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035
Total, kg/sec 0.0064 0.0064 0.3584 0.3584 0.3584 0.3584 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648
Total, SCFM 18.68 18.68 628.02 628.02 628.02 628.02 647.17 647.17 647.17 647.17
Total, ACFM 13.94 5.16 626.81 649.90 244.86 257.75 672.01 678.80 2,013.48 2,033.82
Temperature, F 60 367 59 73 429 429 1,700 1,700 1,174 1,174

Temperature, C 16 186 15 23 221 221 927 927 635 635
Pressure, psia 19.70 84.70 14.70 14.55 64.48 61.25 58.80 58.22 14.85 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 5.76 1.00 0.99 4.39 4.17 4.00 3.96 1.01 1.00
Figure 2-2
Non-Recuperated Microturbine (Process Flows Given under ISO Conditions)
2-4
10093036

Table 2-2
Major System Parameters Assumed in the Estimate of Microturbine Performance
System System Parameter Recuperated Non-Recuperated

Component Turbine Turbine
Compressor Polytropic Efficiency, % 82 82
Inlet dP/P, % 1 1
Outlet dP/P, % 5 5
Total Pressure Ratio 4.167 4.167
Mechanical Efficiency, % 99 99
Recuperator Effectiveness, % 85 N/A
Exhaust Side dP/P, % 5 N/A
Pressure Side dP/P, % 5 N/A
Heat Loss dQ/Q, % 2 N/A
Combustor Outlet Temperature, F 1,700 1,700
dP/P, % 4 4
Expander Polytropic Efficiency, % 85 85
Inlet dP/P, % 1 1
Outlet dP/P, % 1 1
Total Pressure Ratio 3.61 4.0
Mechanical Efficiency, % 99 99
Fuel Compressor Adiabatic Efficiency, % 60 60
Inlet Pressure, psia 5 5
Discharge Pressure, psia 84.7 84.7
System (motor, etc.) Eff., % 62 62
Electrical Generator Efficiency, % 95 95
Power Conditioner Eff., % 95 95
Ambient Condition Pressure, psia 14.7 14.7
2-5
10093036
Table 2-3
System Performance Comparison at ISO Rating Between Recuperated and
Non-Recuperated Microturbines
Non-
Recuperated Recuperated
Turbine Turbine
Ambient Temperature ISO (59F) ISO (59F)
Air Flow
SCFM 768.80 627.85
lb/s 0.97 0.79
Fuel Flow
SCFM 11.36 18.68
Million Btu/h (HHV) 0.70 1.15
Expander Power Output, kW 145.41 129.25
Compressor Power Need, kW 90.01 73.85
Net Turbine Shaft Power, kW 55.40 55.40
Generator Loss, kW 2.77 2.77
Power Conditioner Loss, kW 2.63 2.63
Turbine-generator Output, kW 50.00 50.00
Fuel Compressor, kW 2.71 4.10
Net Power Output, kW 47.29 45.90
Efficiency (HHV), % 23.11 13.64
Efficiency (LHV), % 25.64 15.13
Without the recuperator, the turbine has lower gas pressure drops on both the air feed and
exhaust gas sides. This allows the expander to have a higher inlet pressure and also a lower
exhaust pressure. As a result, the expander has a higher expansion ratio (4.0 vs. 3.61 as shown in
Table 2-2) and requires less turbine flow for a given power production. For this reason, the
non-recuperated turbine requires less airflow than the recuperated turbine as shown in Table 2-3.
The non-recuperator turbine, however, requires substantially more fuel because the airflow to the
combustor is colder without heat recovery from the turbine exhaust gas. The larger fuel
consumption and, to some extent the related parasitic power increase for the fuel compressor,
lead to a lower overall system efficiency.
2.2.2 Turbine Capital and O&M Costs
Shown in Table 2-4 are the capital and O&M costs of the non-recuperated turbine in comparison
with those of the recuperated turbine from the previous EPRI report mentioned above. In that
report, the microturbine costs are given at two production volumes: 1,000 and 10,000 units/year.
The data shown in Table 2-4 correspond to the 10,000-units/year production, which represents
the volume expected at full commercialization.
2-6
10093036

Table 2-4
Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Between Recuperated and Non-Recuperated
Microturbines
Non-
Recuperated Recuperated
Turbine Turbine
Ambient Temperature ISO (59F) ISO (59F)
Capital Cost (10,000 units/y), $
Compressor/Expander 835 759
Permanent Magnet Generator 383 383
Combustor 849 744
Recuperator 5,796 ---
Micro-turbine Housing 878 878
Power Conditioner 6,458 6,458
Chassis/Enclosure 465 310
Fuel Compressor 3,804 4,976
Balance of Plant 1,524 1,136
Profit 8,397 6,258
Installation Cost 14,695 10,951
Total Installed Cost 44,084 32,852
$/kW 932 716
O&M Cost, c/kWh 1.50 1.12
The capital costs for the non-recuperated turbine were estimated as following:
• Compressor/expander, permanent magnet generator, and power conditioner: These costs

were prorated using 0.65 power scaling factor1 from the recuperated turbine case based
on the horsepower or kW ratings of these components.
• Combustor: This cost was prorated with 0.65 power factor1 from the recuperated turbine
case based on the airflow ratio.
• Recuperator: This cost is eliminated for the non- recuperated turbine case.
• Fuel compressor: This cost was prorated with 0.65 power factor1 from the recuperated
turbine case based on the fuel flow ratio.
• Microturbine housing: This cost was kept the same as the recuperated turbine case.
• Chassis/enclosure: This cost was assumed to be two thirds of that of the recuperated
turbine case to take into account the lack of recuperator.
• Balance of plant, profit, and installation: These costs were factored from the total
equipment cost based on the same ratio used in the recuperated turbine case.
1
Component cost = C *(Component Capacity)X, where X is the power factor and C is a constant.
2-7
10093036

The O&M cost for the recuperated turbine is from the previous EPRI report mentioned above. As
microturbines require no operator attendance, the O&M cost is basically only the maintenance
cost. Microturbines, including the fuel compressors, have not operated long enough to fully
establish their maintenance cost. The O&M cost for the non-recuperated turbine was estimated
from the recuperated turbine case by the ratio of their capital costs ($/kW).
Table 2-4 shows the recuperated turbine has higher capital and O&M costs due to the
recuperator.
2.2.3 Effects of Ambient Temperature
Peak shaving is most likely to be needed during hot days to meet air conditioning loads. Shown
in Table 2-5 are the impacts of ambient temperature on the turbine performance and cost.
Table 2-5
Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Between Recuperated and Non-Recuperated
Microturbines
Non-Recuperated
Turbine
Ambient Temperature 32F ISO (59F) 100 F
Air Flow
SCFM 660.14 627.85 584.43
lb/s 0.83 0.79 0.73
Fuel Flow
SCFM 20.24 18.68 16.57
Million Btu/h (HHV) 1.24 1.15 1.02
Expander Power Output, kW 136.04 129.25 120.13
Compressor Power Need, kW 73.92 73.85 73.74
Net Turbine Shaft Power, kW 62.12 55.40 46.38
Generator Loss, kW 3.11 2.77 2.32
Power Conditioner Loss, kW 2.95 2.63 2.20
Turbine-generator Output, kW 56.06 50.00 41.86
Fuel Compressor, kW 4.44 4.10 3.64
Net Power Output, kW 51.62 45.90 38.22
Efficiency (HHV), % 14.16 13.64 12.80
Efficiency (LHV), % 15.70 15.13 14.20
Installed Cost (10,000 units/y), $ 32,852 32,852 32,852
$/kW 636 716 860
O&M Cost, c/kWh 0.99 1.12 1.34
2-8
10093036
The data for the ISO (59 F/15 C) case in Table 2-5 are extracted from Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The
data for two other ambient temperatures (32 F/0 C and 100 F/37.8) were estimated from the
turbine simulation model by keeping the same airflow (actual volume) to the turbine as the ISO
case. This assumption is based on the turbine being a constant volume machine and the
microturbine manufacturers usually operate the turbine at constant speed at full load operation.
Table 2-5 shows the turbine power output decreases with increase of ambient temperature. To a
lesser degree, this is also true for the turbine efficiency. Due to the lower power rating at higher
ambient temperature, the capital and O&M costs per kW are increased. The efficiency and cost
as function of the ambient temperature are plotted in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.
Currently some microturbine manufacturers elect to use a flat rating below 59 F (15 C), i.e. the
power output remains the same at the ISO level, by reducing the firing temperature or rotating
speed. Higher power output is sacrificed to minimize costs of the generator, power conditioner,
and fuel compressor. Whether to use flat rating is a business decision, depending on whether the
conceived market would be in regions of cold climate or not. To suppress the high initial product
cost could be another driving force to use the flat rating in the present market entry stage of
microturbines.
22.0% 30,000
21.0% 28,000
Heat Rate (HHV)

20.0% 26,000
19.0% Heat Rate (LHV) 24,000
Heat Rate, Btu/kWh

Thermal Efficiency
18.0% 22,000
17.0% 20,000
16.0% 18,000
Efficiency (LHV)
15.0% 16,000
14.0% Efficiency (HHV) 14,000
13.0% 12,000
12.0% 10,000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Ambient Temperature, F
Figure 2-3
Thermal Efficiency and Heat Rat of Non-Recuperated Microturbine as Function of Ambient
Temperature
2-9
10093036
950 1.60
900 1.40
850 O&M Cost 1.20

Micro-turbine Capital Cost, $/kW
Micro-Turbine O&M Cost, c/kWh

800 1.00
750 0.80
Capital Cost
700 0.60
650 0.40
600 0.20
550 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 2-4
Capital Cost (Installed) and O&M Cost of Non-Recuperated Microturbine as Function of
Ambient Temperature
2.3 Icebox Performance and Cost Characteristics
2.3.1 Turbine Performance with Icebox
Shown in Figure 2-5 are the process arrangement and major process streams when the
microturbine uses an icebox to cool the inlet air during hot days. The process flows are based on
100 F (37.8 C) ambient temperature with the turbine inlet air cooled to 45 F (7.2 C).
The icebox unit consists of an icemaker, an ice-water storage tank, ice water circulating pumps,
and cooling coils at the turbine air inlet. Ice made by the icemaker is dropped into the storage
tank where it is suspended in a water bath. During the turbine operating cycle, the circulating
pump sends the cold water from the storage tank to the cooling coil. After it cools the turbine
inlet air, the water is returned to the storage tank. During the ice making cycle, the pump sends
the water from the storage tank to the icemaker to make up ice melted during the turbine cycle.
2-10
10093036

Shown in Table 2-6 is the turbine performance with inlet air-cooling in comparison with that
without the cooling. The turbine performance with the cooling has taken into account the
additional pressure drop (0.5” water) of the air stream during its flow over the cooling coils.
Table 2-6 shows that the inlet air-cooling from 100 F (37.8 C) to 45 F (7.2 C) can increase the
turbine power output by more than 10 kW for a 50 kW turbine rated at ISO conditions.
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
7 8
natural 1
combustor
gas
high speed
generator
6 9
ice
power maker
conditioner 10
4
5
ice ice/water
air 13 storage
11
cooler tank
12 icewater
3 air pump turbine
air
filter exhaust
Figure 2-5
Microturbine with Inlet Air Cooling by Icebox
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Air after Compressed Air to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to Icewater to Water Return
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Ice Cooling Generator Air Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Atmosphere Air Cooler to Icemaker
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.03
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 77.26 78.07 78.07 78.07 78.07 75.77 75.77 75.77 75.77
O2, vol% 20.67 20.89 20.89 20.89 20.89 14.33 14.33 14.33 14.33
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 6.87 6.87 6.87 6.87 100.00 100.00
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0146 0.0146 0.8175 0.8122 0.8122 0.8122 0.8122 0.8268 0.8268 0.8268 0.8268 2.0248 2.0248
Total, kg/sec 0.0066 0.0066 0.3712 0.3687 0.3687 0.3687 0.3687 0.3754 0.3754 0.3754 0.3754 0.9193 0.9193
Total, SCFM 19.39 19.39 650.37 643.62 643.62 643.62 643.62 663.50 663.50 663.50 663.50 ----- -----
Total, ACFM 14.47 5.35 700.40 630.20 649.90 245.09 257.99 688.96 695.92 2,063.05 2,083.89 ----- -----
Temperature, F 60 367 100 45 59 409 409 1,700 1,700 1,173 1,173 32 40

Temperature, C 16 186 38 7 15 209 209 927 927 634 634 0 4
Pressure, psia 19.70 84.70 14.70 14.58 14.54 64.48 61.25 58.80 58.22 14.85 14.70 24.70 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 5.76 1.00 0.99 0.99 4.39 4.17 4.00 3.96 1.01 1.00 1.68 1.00
2-11
10093036

Table 2-6
Comparison of Microturbine Performance with and without Inlet Air Cooling by Icebox
Non-Recuperated Turbine
No Icebox With Icebox
Ambient Temperature 100 F 100 F
Turbine Inlet Air Temperature 100 F 45 F
Air Flow
SCFM 584.43 643.45
lb/s 0.73 0.81
Fuel Flow
SCFM 16.57 19.39
2.3.2 Icebox Performance
Shown in Table 2-7 is the sizing of the icebox unit for three cases of using 1, 5, and 10 of the 50
kW microturbines (ISO rating), respectively. It was assumed that the turbines would operate with
the inlet air-cooling for 6 hours in a hot day and the icemaker would produce and store ice in rest
of the day (18 hours) by using off-peak power.
Table 2-7
Icebox Sizing
Number of Microturbines 1 5 10
Heat to be Removed from Air Cooling, Btu/h 58,314 291,572 583,144
Eqiuivalent Amount of Refrigeration, Tons 4.86 24.30 48.60
Hours of Peak Shaving per Day 6 6 6
Hours of Ice Making per Day 18 18 18
Ice Marker Refrigeration Rating, Tons 1.62 8.10 16.20
Air Cooling Coil Bare Surface Area, ft2 55 270 530
Ice Water Storage Tank, ft3 117 584 1,168
Icewater Circulating Rate (32-40F), gpm 15 73 146
Icewater Circulating Pump Head, psi 10 10 10
Water Circulating pump, hp 0.2 0.9 1.7
2-12
10093036

The amount of heat to be removed from the turbine inlet air for the 1-turbine case was calculated
based on the stream flows shown in Figure 2-5. This is equivalent to 4.86 tons of refrigeration
(1 ton = 12,000 Btu/h or 1 ton of ice produced in a day). With 6 hour ice consumption and
18 hour ice making, the icemaker capacity can be calculated to be (4.86)(6/18) = 1.62 tons of
refrigeration. The air cooling coils were sized by assuming the cold water temperature would
increase from 32 F to 40 F (0 - 4.4 C) while the air temperature would decrease from 100 F to
45 F (37.8 - 7.22). The ice-water storage tank was sized with 24-hour storage capacity for a
ice/water mixture of 45%/55%. For cases with larger numbers of microturbines used, the
component sizes of the icebox unit were increased proportionally.
There are many icemaker manufacturers, such as Vogt, Turbo (now a division of Vogt), BERG,
Morris & Associates, and Manitowoc. The product capacities can range from a fraction of a ton
to more than 100 tons. The icemakers have a wide range of applications in hotels, food
processing plants, ships, and a variety of industries. They basically consist of a vapor
compression refrigeration unit (with ammonia or Freon refrigerant) and a plate heat exchanger
where water is cooled by the cold refrigerant to make ice. The ice made can be in various shapes,
such as cubes, tubes, and sheets. The heat from the refrigeration unit can be rejected either
through a cooling water system or an air cooler. Shown in Figures 2-6 are photos of icemakers
from Morris in the size range of 2.5-6.25 tons of ice per day (or tons of refrigeration) based on
air-cooling for heat rejection. The physical dimensions and weights of these units are also given.
Figure 2-6
Example Icemakers from Morris
2-13
10093036

The icemaker capacity is typically rated at 60 F (15.6 C) feed water temperature. For the turbine
inlet air-cooling application, the water feed to the icemaker is from the ice water storage tank at
32 F (0 C). At this lower feed temperature, the actual capacity available can be 15-20% higher.
In the current equipment sizing, this additional capacity was used as design margin.
Shown in Table 2-8 is the performance of the icebox. At 32 F (0 C) feedwater temperature, the
icemaker requires 2.15 kWh per 100 lb of ice made. The power consumption actually varies
somewhat, depending on the manufactures and whether the icemaker is water-cooled or air-
cooled. The total electricity consumed to make ice and to circulate ice water to the turbine(s) is
about 85% of the extra electricity produced by the microturbine(s) due to inlet air-cooling.
Table 2-8
Performance of Icebox
Microturbine Output @ 100F, kW 38.22 191.10 382.20
Microturbine Output with Ice Cooling, kW 48.60 243.01 486.02
Net Increase of Power Output, kW 10.38 51.91 103.83
Ice Marker Refrigeration Rating, Tons 1.62 8.10 16.20
Power Consumed for Ice Making, kW 2.90 14.51 29.02
Power Used for Icewater Circulating, kW 0.15 0.67 1.27
Total Power Consumed, kW 3.05 15.18 30.29
kWh Consumed in 18 h Ice Making 52.24 261.20 522.40
kWh Consumed in 6 h Icewater Pumping 0.90 4.03 7.61
Total kWh Consumed by Icebox 53.14 265.23 530.01
Extra kWh Produced in 6 h Turbine Operation 62.30 311.48 622.97
kWh Used by Icemaker/Extra kWh Produced by Turbine 0.853 0.852 0.851
The ice making requires no makeup water as the ice water is in a close loop circulation. It is,
however, necessary to drain and replace the water once a year. The water recharged is 50% tap
water and 50% demineralized water. If the water recharged were completely demineralized
water, corrosion on the carbon steel water circulating pipes would be too excessive. If the water
were all tap water, then the TDS (total dissolved solids) in the water is too high and could cause
too much scaling in the water loop.
The cooling coils to cool the turbine inlet air are finned tubes with the tubes made of copper and
fins made of aluminum. The coils are placed in a box after the air filter. The ice water storage
tank is made of carbon steel with epoxy lining.
2.3.3 Icebox Capital and O&M Costs
Shown in Table 2-9 are the capital and O&M costs estimated for the icebox units for three cases
of using 1, 5, and 10 units of the 50 kW microturbine (ISO rating), respectively. The icemaker
cost was based on quotes from several manufactures as shown in Figure 2-7 (see the lower curve
with scattered data points). The costs of other system components were estimated based on the
equipment sizes shown in Table 2-7. The installation cost was assumed to be 50% of the total
2-14
10093036

equipment cost. The total equipment cost and installed cost are shown graphically in Figure 2-7
(two upper curves) over a wide range of icebox capacity.
Table 2-9
Icebox Capital and O&M Costs
Microturbine Output @ 100F, kW 38.22 191.10 382.20
Microturbine Output with Ice Cooling, kW 48.60 243.01 486.02
Net Increase of Power Output, kW 10.38 51.91 103.83
Major Equipment Cost, $
Ice Maker 25,432 72,083 113,389
Air Cooling Coil 1,930 5,069 7,683
Icewater Storage Tank 465 1,220 1,850
Icewater Circulating Pump 1,787 4,693 7,114
Total 29,613 83,066 130,036
Installed Cost, $ 44,870 125,538 197,621
Major Equipment Cost, $/ton 18,281 10,256 8,028
Installed Cost, $/ton 27,700 15,500 12,200
$/Extra kW Produced by Micro-Turbine 4,322 2,418 1,903
O&M Cost, $/ton of ice 0.76 0.42 0.33
35,000
30,000
25,000
Capital Cost, $/ton
20,000
15,000
Total Installed Cost
10,000
Total Equipment Cost
Ice Maker Cost

5,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Icebox Refrigeration Rating, Tons (tons of Ice/d)
Figure 2-7
Icebox Capital Costs
2-15
10093036
The icebox O&M cost given in Table 2-9 is based on the annual O&M expenses to be 1% of the
installed cost if the icebox operates with 100% on-stream factor.
Table 2-9 shows the capital investment required for installing the icebox per extra kW produced
by the turbine is more than the non-recuperated turbine cost ($860/kW at 100 F/37.8 C ambient
temperature as shown in Table 2-5). This means that it is more economical to buy more turbine
than to install the icebox for achieving the extra power production. More discussion of the
economics is given in Chapter 2.4.3.
2.4 Economic Analysis Results
2.4.1 Competitiveness with Grid Power
Microturbines can be cost effective peak shaving units if the demand charges saved in a year can
be equal or more than the turbine annual costs. The breakeven demand charge for the
“microturbine” alone case (i.e. no use of icebox) can be calculated from the annual cost of
microturbine(s) as following:
(Breakeven annual demand charge, $/kW/y) = (Turbine annual capital recovery of turbine,
$/kW/y) + (Turbine annual fuel cost, $/kW/y) + (Turbine annual O&M cost, $/kW/y) – (Energy
cost of the electricity saved by the peak shaving, $/kW/y)
where,
(Turbine annual capital recovery of turbine, $/kW/y) = (Installed cost of non-recuperated

microturbine from Figure 2-4, $/kW)/(Payback time, years)
(Turbine annual fuel cost, $/kW/y) = (Fuel cost, $/Million Btu)(HHV heat rate of non-
recuperated microturbine from Figure 2-3, Btu/kWh)(1 million Btu/106 Btu)(Peak shaving load
factor, %)(8760 h/y)
(Turbine annual O&M cost, $/kW/y) = (O&M Cost of non-recuperated microturbine from
Figure 2-4, $/kWh)(Peak shaving load factor, %)(8760 h/y)
(Energy cost of the electricity saved by the peak shaving, $/kW/y) = (Energy cost of electricity,
$/kWh)(Peak shaving load factor, %)(8760 h/y)
From the formula above, the breakeven demand charge is a function of payback years, ambient
temperature at which the peak shaving occurs, peak shaving load factor, fuel cost, and the
electricity energy cost. Shown in Figures 2-8 to 2-11 are the calculated values for two payback
periods (3 and 7 years), two ambient temperatures (59 and 100 F/15 and 37.8 C), peak shaving
load factors from 0 to 14%, three natural gas cost ($3, $5, and $7/million Btu), and three
electricity energy costs (5, 6, and 7 cents/kWh).
2-16
10093036
450
3 year payback $7/million Btu, 3 c/kWh

100 F Ambient Temperature During Peak Shaving
$7/million Btu, 5 c/kWh
Breaheven Annual Demand Charge, $/kW/y
400 $7/million Btu, 7 c/kWh

350

300
the 1st parameter is fuel cost

the 2nd parameter is purchased power energy cost
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Peak Shaving Load Factor, %
Figure 2-8
Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 7 Year Payback and 100 F/37.8 C Ambient Temperature
300
7 year payback
100 F Ambient Temperature During Peak Shaving $7/million Btu, 3 c/kWh
Breakeven Annual Demand Charge, $/kW/y

250

200
150

100
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure 2-9
Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 3 Year Payback and 100 F/37.8 C Ambient Temperature
2-17
10093036
250
7 year payback $7/million Btu, 3 c/kWh


200

100

50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure 2-10
Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 7 Year Payback and 59 F Ambient Temperature
400
3 year payback

350
300

200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Figure 2-11
Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 3 Year Payback and 59 F Ambient Temperature
2-18
10093036

Figures 2-8 to 2-11 show that the breakeven demand charge is reduced if:
• The payback period allowed on the turbine is longer
• The peak demand load factor is smaller due to either shorter period of peak shaving or
sharper peak of the demand
• The fuel cost is lower
• The energy cost of the electricity is higher
The breakeven charges can range from $110 to $420/kW/y while Chapter 2.1 indicates
demand charges for current rate structures of various utilities in US are in the
$75-200/kW/y. Thus, peak shaving by microturbines can be economical if circumstances
are right.
The breakeven demand charge formula above and Figures 2-8 to 2-11 provide actually only a
simplified analysis. It assumed that the peak shaving throughout the whole year all occurs at one
ambient temperature. In realty, the amount of demand shaved varies as the turbine power output
changes with ambient temperature. To conduct a rigorous analysis by taking into account this
effect, it is necessary to follow the entire load and temperature profiles in a year. The net annual
cost of using microturbines and the annual demand charges saved can be calculated more
rigorously as following:
(Net annual cost of using microturbines, $/y)
= (ISO capacity of the turbines installed, kW)(Installed cost of non-recuperated microturbine
from Table 2-5 at ISO, $/kW)/(Payback time, years)
+ (Fuel cost, $/Million Btu)(1 million Btu/106 Btu){Σ (KWh in a year shaved at ambient
temperature, Ti) (HHV heat rate of non-recuperated turbine at Ti from Figure 2-3, Btu/kWh)}
+ Σ (kWh in a year shaved at ambient temperature, Ti) (O&M Cost of non-recuperated turbine at
Ti from Figure 2-4, Btu/kWh)
– (Total kWh shaved annually)(Energy charge of the electricity, $/kWh)
To illustrate the use of the formula above, a medium size office building in the southeast region
of US was analyzed. In this example case, microturbines of 500 kW total capacity rated at ISO
were used. Table 2-10 shows the power demand and amount of demand shaving by the turbine
on a month-by-month basis.
The amount of demand shaved was determined as illustrated in Figure 2-12 by using the month
of August as an example. The dotted and solid lines shown are power demands before and after
the peak shaving, respectively. Before peak shaving, the highest demand in that month is
4.43 MW and it occurs at 90 F/32.2 C ambient temperature. At this ambient temperature, the
microturbines deliver 441 kW. So, the highest demand after the peak shaving is 3,989 kW. Every
time during the month when the demand exceeds this level, the microturbines are activated
(on-off operation) to reduce the power demand by whatever the turbines can deliver at the
prevailing ambient temperature at that time. To simplify the illustration, the prevailing
2-19
10093036

temperature was assumed to be the same as that at the peak demand (i.e. 90 F/32.2 C in this
example). Figure 2-12 shows that the microturbines are activated almost every working day in
that month. The area between the dotted and solid lines is the kWh shaved. The peak shaving
load factor for each month or annually is the percentage of the turbine operation time in that
month or the whole year.
Table 2-10
Example Peak Shaving for a Medium Size Office Building in Southeast Region of US
Ambient MWh Peak Turbine Unit Cost

Power Temp at Demand Hours Shaved Shaving Heat Rate of Turbine
Consumed Shaving Shaved of by Load (HHV) O&M
Month MWh F kW Shaving Turbine % Btu/kWh Cent/kWh
Jan 1,104 50 528 131 69.2 17.6 24,732 1.07
Feb 1,020 45 543 42 22.8 6.3 24,554 1.04
Mar 1,105 55 514 24 12.3 3.2 24,912 1.10
Apr 1,195 65 496 41 20.3 5.7 25,096 1.14
May 1,388 80 459 52 23.9 7.0 25,856 1.23
Jun 1,458 90 441 39 17.2 5.4 26,254 1.28
Jul 1,703 100 419 29 12.1 3.9 26,664 1.35
Aug 1,587 90 441 90 39.7 12.1 26,254 1.28
Sep 1,452 80 459 70 32.2 9.7 25,856 1.23
Oct 1,217 70 479 41 19.6 5.5 25,470 1.18
Nov 990 59 500 60 30.0 8.3 25,004 1.13
Dec 1,050 50 528 50 26.4 6.7 24,732 1.07
Annually 15,267 70 484 56 325.8 7.6
4.5
3.5
Power Demand, MW
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 192 216 240 264 288 312 336 360 384 408 432 456 480 504 528 552 576 600 624 648 672 696 720 744
Hour of the Month
Figure 2-12
Load Profiles Before and After Peak Shaving for the Month August in the Example Case
(Dotted Line: Before Shaving, Solid Line: After Shaving)
2-20
10093036

Table 2-11 shows the calculation of net annual cost. The capital cost recovery was based on
7-year payback and $716/kW (rated at ISO) turbine cost (see Table 2-5). The fuel cost was based
on the turbine heat rate and amount of power (kWh) shaved for each month as shown in
Table 2-10 and $4/million Btu (HHV) natural gas price. The turbine O&M cost was based on the
O&M unit rate (cents/kWh) and amount of power (kWh) shaved for each month as shown in
Table 2-10. The energy cost was based on the amount of power (kWh) shaved for each month as
shown in Table 2-10 and energy charge of 5 cents/kWh.
Table 2-11
Net Annual Cost of Peak Shaving for the Example Case (Basis: 7-Year Payback, $4/million Btu
Natural Gas Price, 5 cents/kWh Energy Charge of Electricity)
Turbine Turbine Turbine Electricity Net

Capital Fuel O&M Energy Annual
Recovery Cost Cost Charge Cost
Month $ $ $ $ $
Jan 6,843 740 3,459
Feb 2,241 237 1,141
Mar 1,228 136 616
Apr 2,040 232 1,016
May 2,470 294 1,194
Jun 1,808 220 861
Jul 1,294 164 607
Aug 4,172 509 1,986
Sep 3,326 396 1,608
Oct 2,000 232 982
Nov 3,000 339 1,500
Dec 2,612 283 1,320
Annually 51,143 33,035 3,780 16,289 71,668
From the annual average demand shaved (484 kW) shown in Table 2-10 and the net annual cost
($71,668/y) shown in Table 2-11, the annual demand charge required to break even with the
annual cost is $148/kW/y (71,668/484). The simplified analysis presented in Figures 2-8 to 2-11
based on the same condition (7.6% peak shaving load factor, 70 F/21.1 C average ambient
temperature, $4/million Btu fuel cost, and 5 cents/kWh energy charge) shows the annual
breakeven demand charge (by interpolation among these figures) is $150/kW/y. Thus, the
simplified analysis agrees rather well with the rigorous analysis and can be used as a first cut
analysis.
Table 2-12 shows the demand charge saving calculation for the example case. It was based on
$18/kW and $10/kW for the summer and winter months, respectively. As the saving is more than
the annual cost shown in Table 2-11, it is economical to use microturbines for peak shaving in
this particular case.
Even though the peak shaving in the example case is economical, it is not clear whether the
amount of shaving is at the optimum point. To explore this issue, similar calculation was
2-21
10093036

conducted for other turbine capacities of 50, 200, 350, and 650 kW. The results are summarized
in Table 2-13 and Figure 2-13.
Table 2-12
Demand Charge Saving by Peak Shaving for the Example Case
Demand
Demand Demand Charge
Shaved Charge Saved
Month kW $/kW $
Jan 528 10 5,280
Feb 543 10 5,433
Mar 514 10 5,136
Apr 496 10 4,956
May 459 18 8,268
Jun 441 18 7,945
Jul 419 18 7,533
Aug 441 18 7,945
Sep 459 18 8,268
Oct 479 18 8,619
Nov 500 10 5,000
Dec 528 10 5,280
Annually 79,665
Table 2-13
Economics of Peak Shaving at Different Turbine Capacities for the Example Case
Nominal Peak Demand

Turbine Shaving Annual Charge Net
Capacity Load Factor Cost Saved Saved
kW % $ $ $
50 0.5 5,248 7,967 2,719
200 2.1 22,686 31,866 9,180
350 4.3 43,765 55,766 12,001
500 7.6 71,668 79,665 7,997
650 12.0 108,440 103,565 -4,875
Table 2-13 shows that, as the turbine capacity increases to provide higher level of peak shaving,
the peak shaving load factor becomes higher. Also, both the annual cost and demand charge
saved increase. At low turbine capacity and load factor, there is net cost benefit but the benefit is
small because the amount of shaving is small. However, the low efficiency of the non-
recuperated turbine starts to erode the cost savings beyond a certain turbine size and load factor.
This can make peak shaving less attractive or even uneconomical. Figure 2-13 shows the
optimum turbine capacity to use is 400 kW for this example case.
2-22
10093036
120,000
100,000
80,000
Demand Charge Saved
60,000
Cost, $/y
Net Annual Cost of

Peak Shavig
40,000
20,000
Net Saving
-20,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Turbine Capacity, kW (rated at ISO)
Figure 2-13
Optimum Turbine Capacity for Peak Shaving in the Example Case
2.4.2 Competitiveness with Natural Gas Fired IC Engines
Reciprocating internal combustion engines are a well-established distributed generation

technology and come in a wide capacity range, from a few kW to 25 MW. Some of the familiar
manufacturers are Caterpillar, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Kohler, Honda, Cooper, Jenbacher, and
Waukesha. Because emission control requirements for distributed generation are expected to
become more stringent in the future, only the clean-burning natural gas-fired IC engines were
compared with microturbines. The diesel- and fuel oil-fired IC engines are expected to have
unacceptable emission levels for distributed generation in most parts of the U.S.
Natural gas-fired IC gen sets can be divided into two types according to the engine size. For
engines smaller than 150 kW, the gen sets are basically derived from gasoline engines and their
costs are low in the $300-400/kW range. They are not designed for high durability and have only
15,000-20,000 hour life before major overhaul. For engines larger than 150 kW (with 3-4 MW as
the top size available commercially), the gen sets are designed from scratch and targeted mainly
for prime power or continuous power applications (prime power requires load following while
continuous power is at constant load). The engines have 80,000 hour life before major overhaul
but their costs are higher in the $600-700/kW range. The gasoline-engine derived gen sets are
probably the optimal choice for the peak shaving application, which requires only several
hundred hours of operation annually.
2-23
10093036

Natural gas fired IC engines use spark plugs rather than gas compression for ignition. They can
be classified also by whether they are naturally aspirated engines or turbocharged engines. In the
naturally aspirated engines, the fuel gas is aspirated into a carburetor to mix with the air intake.
No fuel compressor is required. Turbocharging an engine can boost its throughput by as much as
20-30% and its efficiency by as much as 3-4%; therefore, naturally aspirated engines are seldom
used now.
Fuel compressors may be needed for turbocharged units larger than 1 MW because the fuel gas is
mixed with air feed after the air is pressure-boosted by the turbocharger. The fuel gas pressure
required by the engines is typically in the 30-50 psig range. But for units smaller than 1 MW, the
fuel is fed to the turbocharger intake and no fuel compressor is required. This is because the cost
increase for turbocharger modification to handle co-compression of fuel and air is less than the
fuel compressor cost.
The performance and costs of microturbines are compared with natural gas fired IC engines in
Table 2-14. The engine data shown are based on gasoline-engine derived/ turbocharged units.
The comparison is discussed below.
Comparison of Efficiency
The thermal efficiencies of natural gas fired IC engines depend on the engine size and whether
they are designed for low emissions, high efficiency, or high output. In general, the efficiencies
are 28-32% (LHV) for engine sizes below 150 kW, 32-40% between 150 kW and 1 MW, and
40-45% for over 1MW. Table 2-14 shows that non-recuperated microturbines have only 14-16%
efficiency. This efficiency difference is not critical at low peak shaving load factor but could be a
major disadvantage for microturbines when the peak shaving load factor exceeds 3-4%.
Comparison of Footprint, Weight, and Startup Time
Table 2-14 shows that natural gas fired IC engines are both more compact and lighter than
microturbines. The table also shows that microturbines have longer startup time than natural gas
fired IC engines. The main reason is that microturbines have tight clearance between the rotors
and casings and rotate at very high speed. The rotors and casings need to be fully warmed up and
thermally expanded before it is safe and efficient to spin the turbine into the high speed. For
manufacturers using air bearings, such as Capstone and Honeywell, it is also necessary to bring
the bearings to high speed in an orderly and timely fashion.
Comparison of Capacity De-rating
Table 2-14 shows that the ambient temperature increase has much less impact on the capacity de-
rating for IC engines than microturbines. Thus, IC engines are more advantageous when peak
shaving occurs often at high ambient temperature.
2-24
10093036

Table 2-14
Performance and Cost of Microturbines with Natural Gas Fired IC Engine Gen Sets
Microturbines (non- Natural Gas Fired IC

recuperated) Engine Gen Sets
(<150 kW)
Efficiency (LHV) 14-16% 28-34%
(See Table 2-5)
Footprint, ft2/kW Gen Sets 0.4-0.6 0.2-0.4
Fuel Compressor 0.1-0.3 N/A
Total 0.5-0.9 0.2-0.4
Weight, lb/kW Gen Sets 20-40 20-40
Fuel Compressor 5-20 N/A
Total 25-60 20-40
Startup Time 2-3 minutes 1-20 seconds
Capacity De-rating 4% de-rating for every 0.5% de-rating for every
10F/5.6C temperature 10F/5.6C temperature
rise rise
Capital Cost, $/kW Equipment 430-570 270-360
Installation 220-280 135-180
Total Installed Cost 650-850 405-540
(See Figure 2-4)
O&M Cost, 1.0-1.4 0.5-2.0
cents/kWh (See Figure 2-4)
NOx Emission* ppmv @15% O2 9-25 75-1,200
g/kWh 0.4-1.1 1.3-20
CO Emission* ppmv @15% O2 20-40 100-3,000
g/kWh 0.25-0.5 1-30
UHC Emission* ppmv @15% O2 5-10 150-450
g/kWh 0.08-0.15 1-3
Noise dB at 10 m 65 75
Maintenance Hours of operation 5,000 2,000
Interval before major service
* Without post combustion treatment
Comparison of Costs
The capacity rating of IC engines is a function of their applications. Typically, the rating for
standby power or intermittent power is 10% more than that for prime power or continuous
power. As a result, the gen set cost on $/kW basis for the peak shaving application (considered as
intermittent power) is lower. The cost data shown in Table 2-14 have incorporated this rating
adjustment. In estimating the installation cost, it was assumed that this cost was 50% of the
equipment cost. This is the same as that used in the microturbine cost estimate.
Table 2-14 shows that natural gas fired IC engines have lower capital costs than microturbines
but the O&M costs are comparable. As microturbines have not had sufficient operating
experience, the O&M cost comparison is not conclusive.
2-25
10093036

Comparison of Emissions
Table 2-14 shows microturbines have substantially lower NOx, CO, and UHC emissions than
natural gas fired IC engines on ppmv basis. As turbines (non-recuperated) have much lower
efficiency than gas engines, the emission differences on g/kWh basis are smaller. The data given
are all based on no use of post combustion treatment. For the gas engines, the emissions vary
over a wide range, depending on whether the engines use rich burn or lean burn.
In gas engines which use rich combustion, the fuel/air ratio is kept just slightly above the
stoichiometric requirement over the entire load range by throttling the air intake volume. As a
result, the oxygen content in the flue gas is typically no more than 1%. This low oxygen content
allows the use of three-way catalyst to reduce NOx, CO, and UHC simultaneously (thus the
name for the catalyst). For NOx, the emission before treatment is in the 10-20 g/kWh range.
After treatment, it can be reduced to 0.4 g/kWh, i.e. the same level as that emitted by
microturbines. This catalyst is essentially the same as that used in the automobile catalytic
converter. It is very low cost due to the high volume production and will increase the gen set cost
only by 1-2%.
In gas engines which use lean combustion, the fuel/air ratio used is substantially above the
stoichiometric requirement. As a result, the oxygen content in the flue gas is typically in the
7-8% range. The lean combustion can reduce NOx emission to 1.3 g/kWh (75 ppmv) level. But
as the flue gas is oxygen rich, the three-way catalyst (which reduces NOx to N2 and therefore
cannot accept oxygen rich gas) cannot be used to further reduce the emission level. These
engines are typically used when the emission standards do not require NOx emission less than
1.3 g/kWh.
Comparison of Maintenance Requirements
The maintenance interval of gas-fired IC engines is a function of the type of engine. For engines
derived from gasoline engines as selected for comparison in this study, the interval is typically
2,000 hours. For engines purposely built for high reliability to capture primary power or
continuous power market, the interval is longer at 5,000 hours. There are not sufficient data for
microturbines. The maintenance interval shown in Table 2-14 is manufacturers’ projection.
Microturbines are rotating instead of reciprocating machines and are expected to have longer
maintenance intervals.
Conclusions
From the discussion above, it appears that natural gas fired engines are more attractive to use
than microturbines for the peak shaving application. The cost difference between them, however,
is not very large. If microturbines can further reduce the cost, there is chance for microturbines to
be competitive.
2-26
10093036
2.4.3 Value of Using Ice Box
As pointed out at the end of Chapter 2.3.3, the installed cost of the icebox per extra kW produced
by the turbine (see Table 2-9) is more than the turbine cost shown in Table 2-5. This means that
it is more economical to buy more turbines than to install an icebox to achieve the extra power.
But the icebox cost exhibits a very significant economy of scale. At a larger capacity, the icebox
cost can break even with the turbine cost.
Shown in Figure 2-14 is a comparison of annual costs between the icebox and the additional
turbines bought. The icebox annual cost includes the capital recovery, O&M cost, and the
electricity to run the icebox. The turbine annual cost includes only the capital recovery because
the O&M cost and fuel cost are required regardless whether the extra peak shaving capacity
comes from the expanded turbine capacity due to air cooling or from the additional turbines
bought. Figure 2-14 shows that only when the peak shaving load reaches 4,200-4,300 kW size,
the icebox starts to be economical.
350,000
Additional Turbine, 3 y payback

Off peak power to run
icebox: 2 cents/kWh
300,000 Icebox, 3 y payback
Peak Shaving Load
Factor: 1%
250,000
Annual Cost, $/y
200,000
150,000
Additional Turbine, 7 y payback
Icebox, 7 y payback
100,000
50,000
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
Peak Shaving Load, kW
Figure 2-14
Comparison of the costs Between Icebox and Purchase of Additional Turbines
2.4.4 Value of Using Evaporative Cooler
Shown in Figure 2-15 are the process arrangement and major process streams when the
microturbine uses an evaporative cooler to cool the inlet air during hot days. The process flows
2-27
10093036

are based on turbine inlet air of 100 F/37.8 C and zero humidity, cooled to 57 F/13.9 C and
100 percent humidity.
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
7 8
natural 1
combustor
gas
high speed
generator
6 9
power
conditioner 4 10
5
air evaporative 11
3 filter cooler
air
makeup
turbine
water
exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Air after Compressed Air to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Evap Cooling Generator Air Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Atmosphere
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 79.07 77.82 77.82 77.82 77.82 75.55 75.55 75.55 75.55
O2, vol% 20.93 20.60 20.60 20.60 20.60 14.13 14.13 14.13 14.13
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 1.58 1.58 1.58 1.58 7.32 7.32 7.32 7.32
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0141 0.0141 0.7848 0.7927 0.7927 0.7927 0.7927 0.8068 0.8068 0.8068 0.8068
Total, kg/sec 0.0064 0.0064 0.3563 0.3599 0.3599 0.3599 0.3599 0.3663 0.3663 0.3663 0.3663
Total, SCFM 18.74 18.74 619.62 629.58 629.58 629.58 629.58 648.79 648.79 648.79 648.79
Total, ACFM 13.98 5.17 667.28 631.10 649.90 244.80 257.69 673.69 680.49 2,017.80 2,038.18
Temperature, F 60 367 100 57 71 427 427 1,700 1,700 1,174 1,174

Temperature, C 16 186 38 14 22 219 219 927 927 634 634
Pressure, psia 19.70 84.70 14.70 14.58 14.54 64.48 61.25 58.80 58.22 14.85 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 5.76 1.00 0.99 0.99 4.39 4.17 4.00 3.96 1.01 1.00
Figure 2-15
Microturbine with Inlet Air Cooling by Evaporative Cooler
The evaporator cooler is a very simple device. Basically it consists of a porous media (either
wood or synthetic fibers) placed in the turbine inlet air duct. Water is sprayed over the media to
trickle down to a sump. The inlet air flows through the media in cross flow relative to the water
2-28
10093036

flow. The high surface area of the media promotes the evaporation of water into the air stream.
The water evaporation cools down the airflow. Excess water plus makeup water is recirculated
from the sump by a pump to the top of the cooler.
without the cooling. The degree of air-cooling achievable is a function of the initial humidity in
the air. At 100 F/37.8 C ambient temperature with zero humidity, the turbine inlet air can be
cooled down to 57 F/13.9 C by evaporative cooling. As the humidity increases, the evaporative
cooling becomes less effective. Table 2-15 gives the achievable cooled air temperature and
corresponding turbine performance as a function of the air relative humidity. The turbine
performance estimate has taken into account the additional pressure drop (0.5” water) of the air
stream during its flow through the evaporative cooler.
Also shown in Table 2-15 is the additional cost to install the evaporative cooler. Table 2-15
shows that the cost per additional kW obtained by the evaporative cooler is very low in
comparison with the turbine cost if the air humidity is low. This is shown graphically in
Figure 2-16 in comparison with the turbine cost. Figure 2-16 shows that when the relative
humidity approaches 68%, the evaporative cooler starts to lose attractiveness because the cost to
gain the extra power produced exceeds that of the turbine cost on $/kW basis. Thus, the
evaporator cooler is an effective method to increase the turbine capacity only in regions of low
air humidity.
Table 2-15
Comparison of Microturbine Performance with and without Inlet Air Cooling by Evaporative
Cooler
Non-Recuperated Microturbine
Use of Evaporative Cooler No Yes
Ambient Temperature 100 F 100 F 100 F 100 F 100 F
Relative Humidity, % 0-100 0 30 60 90
Turbine Inlet Air Temperature 100 F 57 F 72 F 87 F 97 F
Air Flow
SCFM 584.43 629.41 610.54 596.85 586.72
lb/s 0.73 0.79 0.77 0.74 0.73
Fuel Flow
SCFM 16.57 18.73 17.88 17.29 16.88
Million Btu/h (HHV) 1.02 1.15 1.10 1.06 1.04
Expander Power Output, kW 120.13 129.55 125.65 122.85 120.80
Compressor Power Need, kW 73.74 73.86 73.77 73.69 73.61
Net Turbine Shaft Power, kW 46.38 55.69 51.88 49.16 47.19
Generator Loss, kW 2.32 2.78 2.59 2.46 2.36
Power Conditioner Loss, kW 2.20 2.65 2.46 2.34 2.24
Turbine-generator Output, kW 41.86 50.26 46.82 44.37 42.59
Evaporative Cooler, kW -- 0.49 0.29 0.14 0.03
Fuel Compressor, kW 3.64 4.11 3.93 3.80 3.71
Net Power Output, kW 38.22 45.66 42.61 40.43 38.85
Efficiency (HHV), % 12.80 13.53 13.22 12.97 12.78
Efficiency (LHV), % 14.20 15.01 14.67 14.40 14.17
Additional Capital Required base 1,239 1,239 1,239 1,239
Extra Power Produced, kW base 7.44 4.39 2.21 0.63
$/kW of Extra Generation Capacity base 166 282 561 1,961
2-29
10093036
2,500
2,000
1,500
$/kW
1,000 non-recuperated microturbine cost

(no evapative cooling)
500
$/extra kW for using evaporative
cooler
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative Humidity, %
Figure 2-16
Cost Effectiveness of Evaporative Cooler as a Function of Air Relative Humidity
2-30
10093036
3
HYBRID USE OF MICROTURBINE AND PEM FUEL
CELLS
In this chapter, the economics of a hybrid system of microturbine and PEM fuel cells was
assessed. In this hybrid system, the high efficiency, high cost, and slowly starting PEM fuel cells
are used for base load while the low efficiency, low cost, and quickly starting microturbines are
used for load following. It combines the best attributes of both the PEM fuel cells and
microturbine and also offers users the flexibility to be grid independent. The system design
incorporates heat integration between these two units to improve overall performance. The
integration uses the turbine exhaust gas to supplement the reforming process heat required for the
fuel cell units.
The assessment shows that the heat integration can significantly increase the PEM fuel cell
efficiency, from 36.6% to 41.8% if recuperated turbines are used, and to 51.1% if non-
recuperated turbines are used (all efficiencies on LHV basis). The assessment also shows the
hybrid system (either the recuperated or non-recuperated turbine cases) can provide lower costs
of electricity than the non-hybrid system (i.e., turbine only case) for most load profiles and over
a wide range of payback periods and fuel costs.
Described below are the performance and costs of PEM fuel cells, microturbines, and the hybrid
system. This is followed by the economic analysis of the hybrid system in comparison with the
turbine only case.
3.1 PEM Fuel Cell Performance and Costs
3.1.1 Performance
A system simulation model was built to estimate the PEM fuel cell performance. Shown in
Figure 3-1 is the process configuration used, including the major process streams, for a 50 kW
unit. Shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 are the system parameters assumed and the overall system
performance estimated, respectively.
In a previous EPRI study for PEM fuel cell design and cost estimate1, the hydrogen gas required
for the fuel cell stack was produced by partial oxidation. In this study, steam reforming was used
for the hydrogen production. Partial oxidation can start up faster but also has lower efficiency.
For the base load use in the hybrid system, the fuel cell units do not start up often. Thus, steam
1
EPRI Report TR-111584, Preliminary Design and Cost Structure of a 50-kW Polymer
Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) System for Stationary Applications, December 1998.
3-1
10093036
Hybrid Use Of Microturbine And Pem Fuel Cells

reforming is probably more attractive to use. The reformer incorporated in the design is the
compact type currently used by many PEM fuel cell developers.
flue 6
gas
12
separator
8 9
high low radiator
temp temp
4 shift
cathode
shift
anode
DC AC
ZnO steam
prefe- power
bed reformer
10 BFW
rential power
oxidizer storage conditioner
7
air
blower humid/CW
5 combustor 11 storage
air
air 13
water air
2 air raw
natural 1 blower water treatment air
gas blower
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stream Name Natural NG to Refor- Cathode Reformer Air to Refor- Total Reformer HT Shift LT Shift PPROX Anode Anode Cathode
Gas Feed mer Furnace Exhaust Steam mer Furnace Flue Gas Product Feed Feed Feed Feed Exhaust Air Intake
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 4.02 5.96 5.96 13.47 16.05 16.34 32.69
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 69.79 77.26 67.58 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.01 6.02 77.26
O2, vol% 9.00 20.67 10.19 20.67
CO, vol% 10.86 10.86 3.35 0.77 0.00 0.00
H2, vol% 55.05 55.05 62.56 65.14 62.54 25.03
H2O, vol% 21.22 100.00 2.07 18.21 27.80 27.80 20.30 17.71 18.03 36.08 2.07
Sulfur Compounds, ppm 4 ppmv
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0063 0.0018 0.1142 0.0148 0.1242 0.2596 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0194 0.0211 0.0194 0.1125
Total, kg/sec 0.0029 0.0008 0.0518 0.0067 0.0564 0.1178 0.0088 0.0088 0.0088 0.0088 0.0096 0.0088 0.0511
Total, SCFM 8.42 2.34 99.04 18.72 98.83 217.02 37.21 37.21 37.21 37.21 38.30 19.14 89.46
Total, ACFM 6.72 2.26 121.14 33.23 96.63 381.11 114.23 63.50 56.31 46.26 44.65 22.58 89.46
Temperature, F 60 60 176 650 67 453 1,450 580 433 250 176 176 60
Temperature, C 16 16 80 343 20 234 788 304 223 121 80 80 16
Pressure, psia 18.40 15.24 14.70 17.68 15.24 14.70 17.59 17.23 16.69 16.14 15.42 15.24 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.25 1.04 1.00 1.20 1.04 1.00 1.20 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.05 1.04 1.00
Figure 3-1
Process Configuration and Major Process Streams of PEM Fuel Cells
3-2
10093036

Table 3-1
Major System Parameters of PEM Fuel Cells
Fuel Cell Stack Heat Loss, % of Natural Gas LHV Heat 0.5
Cell Current Density, mA/cm2 500 High Temperature Shift
Cell Voltage, V 0.73 HT Shift Reactor Maximum Outlet 740
Air/Fuel Stoichiometric Ratio 1.50 Temperature, F
HT Shift Temp Approach, F 0.1
Fuel Utilization, % 80
HT Shift Reactor Pressure Drop, in. 10
Anode Inlet Temp, F 176
H2O
Anode Outlet Temp, F 176 HT Shift Cooler Pressure Drop (process 5
Cathode Inlet Temp, F 65 gas side), in. H2O
HT Shift Cooler Pressure Drop (steam 5
Cathode Outlet Temp, F 176 side), psi
Anode Pressure Drop, in. H2O 5 Low Temperature Shift
Cathode Pressure Drop, in. H2O 10 LT Shift Reactor Maximum Outlet 450
Natural Gas Desulfurization Temperature, F
LT Shift Temp Approach, F 0.1
Desulfurizer Pressure Drop, in. H2O 20
LT Shift Reactor Pressure Drop, in. H2O 10
Natural Gas Preheated Temperature for 650
Desulfurization, F LT Shift Cooler Pressure Drop (process 5
gas side), in. H2O
Reformer
LT Shift Cooler Pressure Drop (steam 5
Reformer Steam/Carbon Ratio 3.0 side), psi
Reformer Temp Approach for Steam 15.0 Preferential Oxidation (PROX)
Methane Reaction, F Preferential Oxidation Final CO 10
Reformer Temp Approach for Water 0.1 Concentration, ppmv
Gas Shift Reaction, F Selectivity of Preferential Oxidation (H2 1
Reformer Product Temperature, F 1,450 over CO)
Reformer Pressure Drop (reformer side), 5 Preferential Oxidation Inlet 250
in. H2O Temperature, F
Reformer Pressure Drop (flue gas side), 5 PROX Reactor Pressure Drop, in. H2O 10
in. H2O PROX Product Cooler Pressure Drop 10
Temperature Approach Between 50 (flue gas side), in. H2O
Reformer Feed Gas and Flue Gas PROX Product Cooler Pressure Drop 2.5
Reformer Furnace Outlet Temperature, F 1,500 (CW side), psi
Reformer Furnace Pressure Drop, in. 5 Heat Rejection
H2O Radiator Pressure Drop, psi 5
Reformer Flue Gas Cooler (gas side) 5
Pressure Drop, in. H2O Miscellaneous
Reformer Flue Gas Cooler (steam side) 5 Stack Cooling Water Pressure Drop, psi 5
Pressure Drop, psi
Inverter Efficiency, % 95
NG Preheater (reformate side) Pressure 5
Drop, in. H2O Air Blower Efficiency (all blowers), % 76.0
Steam Generator (reformate side) 5 CW Pump Efficiency, % 60.0
Pressure Drop, in. H2O
NG Preheater (NG side) Pressure Drop, 5 BFW Pump Efficiency, % 60.0
in. H2O Blower Motor Efficiency, % 60.0
Steam Generator (steam side) Pressure 5 Pump Motor Efficiency, % 60.0
Drop, psi
3-3
10093036
Table 3-2
Performance Summary of PEM Fuel Cells
Air Flow
SCFM 99.04
lb/s 0.114
Fuel Flow
SCFM 8.42
Million Btu/h (HHV) 0.52
Power Generation/Consumption, kW
Stack Power Output, kW 53.76
Inverter Power Output, kW 51.07
Blower Power Need, kW 0.62
Pumps, kW 0.09
Radiator Fan Power Need, kW 0.36
Net Plant Output, kW 50.00
Efficiency (HHV) 33.0%

Efficiency (LHV) 36.6%
PEM fuel cells require humidification on either the anode or cathode side or both sides,
depending on the manufacturers. The extent of humidification and method of humidification also
vary among manufacturers. In this study, the humidification was assumed to be required only on
the anode side. As shown in Figure 3-1, the stack cooling water flow through a wicked plate on
the anode side humidifies the anode gas. Excess water is separated from the anode exhaust gas
and recycled at the stack exit. For stationary applications, water self-sufficiency is not a crucial
issue. Thus, the design did not incorporate water recovery from the stack flue gas. It was
assumed that there was water supply to make up the steam requirement for reforming. The anode
exhaust gas is used as a supplemental fuel in the reformer furnace.
PEM fuel cells can be operated at either atmospheric or elevated pressure. Pressurized operation
results in higher efficiency and easier water recovery from the stack flue gas, but requires the use
of a turbocharger; thus, the system would be more complex and probably have lower reliability.
As water recovery is not a critical issue for stationary applications, this study used atmospheric
pressure operation. The cell current density and voltage assumed are average values reported by
various developers at this operating pressure1.
Table 3-2 shows that the overall system efficiency is 36.6% on a LHV basis. In comparison, the
efficiencies reported by various manufacturers are in the 30-40% range, wherein the higher
efficiencies correspond with pressurized operation and the lower efficiencies with atmospheric
pressure operation.
1
EPRI Report TR-111584, Preliminary Design and Cost Structure of a 50-kW Polymer
Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) System for Stationary Applications, December 1998.
3-4
10093036
3.1.2 Capital and O&M Costs
Shown in Table 3-3 are capital and O&M costs of the 50 kW PEM fuel cell unit based on
10,000-units/y production volume, which represents the volume expected at full
commercialization.
Table 3-3
Capital and O&M Costs of 50 kW PEM Fuel Cell Unit

Fuel Cell Stack 10,000
Power Conditioner 6,500
Fuel Processor 25,358
Air Blowers/Pumps 175
Radiator & Fan 300
Water Treatment/Storage 288
BOP and Assembly 1,000
Profit 17,448
Installation Cost 30,535
Total Installed Cost 91,604
$/kW 1,832
O&M Cost, $/y
Maintenance 916
Water Supply Cost 560
Stack replacement 2,000
Reforming/Shift/PROX Catalyst 345
Total O&M Cost 3,821
Cents/kWh 0.87
The capital costs were estimated as following:
• Fuel cell stacks, power conditioner: The costs are the same as those in the previous
EPRI study mentioned above.
• Fuel processor (reformer, high and low temperature shift reactors, and preferential
oxidizer): The cost is the average value from several PEM fuel cell developers
contacted.
• Air blowers/pumps, radiator/fan, water treatment/storage, and BOP and assembly: These
costs were estimated based on their capacities.
• Profit: This cost was estimated to be 40% of the total equipment and assembly cost.
• Installation: This cost was estimated to be 50% of all the costs above.
3-5
10093036

The O&M costs were estimated as following:
• Annual maintenance: This cost was assumed to be 1% of the total installed cost.
• Water supply: This cost was based on $10/1000 gallons, including the raw water
purchase cost and the annual consumption of the reagents and chemicals.
• Stack replacement: This is an annualized cost based on 5-year stack life.
• Reforming/shift/PROX catalysts: The annual replacement cost for these catalysts was
derived from other project experience of hydrogen production.
3.2 Microturbine Performance and Costs
The performance and costs of both recuperated and non-recuperated microturbines have been
discussed in Chapter 2.2. The performance and costs used in this analysis are the same as those
shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3, respectively.
3.3 Hybrid System Performance and Costs
The oxidant available in the turbine exhaust gas for the 50-kW microturbine unit (Streams #12 in
Figure 2-1 and Stream #10 in Figure 2-2) is substantially larger than that required for the
reformer furnace in the 50-kW PEM fuel cell unit (Stream #5 in Figure 3-1). The system
configured in Figure 3-2 assumes there are enough PEM fuel cell units to fully utilize the turbine
exhaust gas for both the recuperated and non-recuperated turbines. The process flows shown are
substantially larger than those for the 50-kW unit shown in Figure 3-1.
Tables 3-4 and 3-5 show the performance and costs of the hybrid system broken down to the fuel
cell and turbine components. The turbine power output and efficiency in both the recuperated
and non-recuperated turbine cases are lower than those shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 because the
turbine exhaust has to discharge at higher pressure in order to flow into the reformer furnace.
The lower turbine output also results in a higher O&M cost in terms of cents/kWh.
A comparison of the Stream #2 in Figure 3-2 with that in Figure 3-1 (after adjustment to the
same hydrogen production for the cell reaction) shows that the heat integration can reduce the
reformer furnace fuel consumption by about 40% in the recuperated turbine case. In the non-
recuperated turbine case, the turbine exhaust gas is much hotter and thus can totally eliminate the
fuel consumption. Due to this fuel reduction or elimination, the PEM fuel cell efficiency is
substantially increased.
Table 3-4 shows that the fuel cell/turbine power output ratio is 6.76 in the non-recuperated
turbine case and 8.96 in the recuperated turbine case. As the base load relative to the load
following requirements for most users are less than these ratios, only a small fraction of the
turbine exhaust (or one of the turbines if multiple turbines are used for the load following) can be
utilized by the fuel cell unit.
3-6
10093036

flue 6
gas
12
separator
8 9
high low radiator
temp temp
4 shift
cathode
shift
anode
DC AC
ZnO steam
prefe- power
bed reformer
10 BFW
rential power
oxidizer storage
7 conditioner
humid/CW
microturbine 5 combustor 11 storage
exhaust gas
air 13
water air
2 air raw
natural 1 blower water treatment air
gas blower
Heat Integration with 50-kW Non-Recuperated Microturbine

Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stream Name Natural NG to Refor- Cathode Reformer Microturbine Total Reformer HT Shift LT Shift PPROX Anode Anode Cathode
Gas Feed mer Furnace Exhaust Steam Flue Gas Flue Gas Product Feed Feed Feed Feed Exhaust Air Intake
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 2.99 4.24 5.96 5.96 13.47 16.05 16.34 32.69
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 69.79 75.01 67.71 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.01 6.02 77.26
O2, vol% 9.00 14.19 9.80 20.67
CO, vol% 10.86 10.86 3.35 0.77 0.00 0.00
H2, vol% 55.05 55.05 62.56 65.14 62.54 25.03
H2O, vol% 21.22 100.00 7.80 18.25 27.80 27.80 20.30 17.71 18.03 36.08 2.07
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0266 0.0000 0.6642 0.0862 0.8046 1.5817 0.1128 0.1128 0.1128 0.1128 0.1228 0.1130 0.6543
Total, kg/sec 0.0121 0.0000 0.3015 0.0391 0.3653 0.7181 0.0512 0.0512 0.0512 0.0512 0.0558 0.0513 0.2970
Total, SCFM 35.34 0.00 576.25 108.92 648.05 1,321.71 216.49 216.49 216.49 216.49 222.85 111.35 520.50
Total, ACFM 28.23 0.00 704.79 193.33 1,979.15 2,451.19 664.59 369.45 327.65 269.15 259.80 131.36 520.50
Temperature, F 60 60 176 650 1,187 504 1,450 580 433 250 176 176 60
Temperature, C 16 16 80 343 641 262 788 304 223 121 80 80 16
Pressure, psia 18.40 15.24 14.70 17.68 15.24 14.70 17.59 17.23 16.69 16.14 15.42 15.24 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.25 1.04 1.00 1.20 1.04 1.00 1.20 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.05 1.04 1.00
Heat Integration with 50-kW Recuperated Microturbine

Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stream Name Natural NG to Refor- Cathode Reformer Microturbine Total Reformer HT Shift LT Shift PPROX Anode Anode Cathode
Gas Feed mer Furnace Exhaust Steam Flue Gas Flue Gas Product Feed Feed Feed Feed Exhaust Air Intake
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 1.48 4.23 5.96 5.96 13.47 16.05 16.34 32.69
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 69.79 76.15 67.41 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.01 6.02 77.26
O2, vol% 9.00 17.46 9.72 20.67
CO, vol% 10.86 10.86 3.35 0.77 0.00 0.00
H2, vol% 55.05 55.05 62.56 65.14 62.54 25.03
H2O, vol% 21.22 100.00 4.91 18.64 27.80 27.80 20.30 17.71 18.03 36.08 2.07
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0440 0.0080 0.8973 0.1164 0.9764 2.0343 0.1524 0.1524 0.1524 0.1524 0.1660 0.1526 0.8839
Total, kg/sec 0.0200 0.0036 0.4074 0.0528 0.4433 0.9236 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0692 0.0753 0.0693 0.4013
Total, SCFM 58.40 10.66 778.52 147.16 781.51 1,702.56 292.48 292.48 292.48 292.48 301.07 150.44 703.20
Total, ACFM 46.65 10.28 952.18 261.19 1,468.09 2,989.62 897.87 499.14 442.66 363.62 350.99 177.46 703.20
Temperature, F 60 60 176 650 553 453 1,450 580 433 250 176 176 60
Temperature, C 16 16 80 343 289 234 788 304 223 121 80 80 16
Pressure, psia 18.40 15.24 14.70 17.68 15.24 14.70 17.59 17.23 16.69 16.14 15.42 15.24 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.25 1.04 1.00 1.20 1.04 1.00 1.20 1.17 1.14 1.10 1.05 1.04 1.00
Figure 3-2
Hybrid System of PEM Fuel Cells with Microturbines
3-7
10093036

Table 3-4
Performance and Costs of Hybrid Systems of PEM Fuel Cells with Non-Recuperated
Microturbines
System Component Hybrid

PEM FC Turbine System
Fuel Flow, Million Btu/h (HHV) 2.17 1.15 3.32
Efficiency (HHV), % 46.05 12.86 34.56
Efficiency (LHV), % 51.09 14.27 38.34
$/kW 1,832 758 1,693
Annual O&M Cost, $/y 22,400 4,495 26,895
O&M Cost, c/kWh 0.87 1.18 0.91
Table 3-5
Performance and Costs of Hybrid Systems of PEM Fuel Cells with Recuperated Microturbines
System Component Hybrid

PEM FC Turbine System
Fuel Flow, Million Btu/h (HHV) 3.59 0.69 4.28
Efficiency (HHV), % 37.64 21.93 35.12
Efficiency (LHV), % 41.77 24.33 38.97
$/kW 1,832 998 1,748
Annual O&M Cost, $/y 30,263 6,214 36,477
O&M Cost, c/kWh 0.87 1.61 0.95
3.4 Economic Analysis
Three cases were compared to assess their relative economics. In the first case, the hybrid system
of PEM fuel cells with non-recuperated turbines is used to provide the base load while non-
recuperated turbines are used to provide the load following. The efficiencies, capital cost ($/kW),
and O&M cost (cents/kWh) for these base-load and load following units follow those shown in
Tables 3-4 and 2-4. In the second case, the hybrid system of PEM fuel cells with recuperated
turbines is used to provide the base load while recuperated turbines are used to provide the load
following. The efficiencies, capital cost ($/kW), and O&M cost (cents/kWh) for these base-load
and load following units follow those shown in Tables 3-5 and 2-4. In the third case, recuperated
turbines are used to provide the base load while non-recuperated turbines are used to provide the
load following. The efficiencies, capital cost ($/kW), and O&M cost (cents/kWh) for these base
load and load following units follow those shown in Table 2-4.
3-8
10093036

For each case, the cost of electricity was calculated as following:
Cost of electricity, cents/kWh = [(Annual cost of using base load unit) + (Annual cost of using
load following unit)]/ (Total power produced annually by base load and load following units)
where,
(Annual cost of using base load unit) = [(Installed cost of base load unit, $/kW) / (payback
period)+ (O&M cost of base load unit, $/kWh) * (8,760 h/y) + (Fuel cost, $/million Btu)
* (8,760 h/y) * (1/106 Million Btu/Btu) * (3,413 Btu/kWh) / (Thermal efficiency of base load
unit, % on HHV basis)] * (Ratio of base load to peak demand) +
(Annual cost of using load following unit) = (Installed cost of load following unit, $/kW) /
(payback period)+ (O&M cost of load following unit, $/kWh) * (8,760 h/y) * (Load factor of
load following unit, %) + (Fuel cost, $/million Btu) * (8,760 h/y) * (1/106 Million Btu/Btu) *
(3,413 Btu/kWh) * (Load factor of load following unit, %) / (Thermal efficiency of load
following unit, % on HHV basis)][1-(Ratio of base load to peak demand)]}/
(Total power produced by base load and load following units) = {(Ratio of base load demand to
peak demand, kW/kW) + [1-(Ratio of base load demand to peak demand, kW/kW)](Load factor
of load following unit, %)}(8,760 h/y)
Shown in Figures 3-3 to 3-8 are the costs of electricity calculated for three base-load to peak
ratios (0.25, 0.5, and 0.75), three fuel costs ($3, 5, and 7/million Btu), and two payback periods
(3 and 7 years). Overall, the turbine only case has the lowest capital cost and also the lowest
efficiency. The hybrid case with non-recuperated turbines has higher capital cost but also higher
efficiency. The hybrid case with recuperated turbines has the highest capital cost but also the
highest efficiency. The microturbine-alone option tends to be the winner when the payback
period is short, fuel cost is low, base-load to peak demand is low, and load factor of the load
following unit is low. The hybrid options tend to be the winner when the payback period is long,
fuel cost is high, base-load to peak demand is high, and load factor of the load following unit is
high.
Figures 3-3 to 3-8 show that under most circumstances, the hybrid cases are more economical
than the turbine only case. They also show that under certain combinations of the fuel cost,
payback period, and load profile, the costs of electricity can be in the 7-13 cents/kWh range. In
this cost range, the hybrid system can compete with purchased power.
The analysis above excludes the use of PEM unit for load following because of its high capital
cost. For example, the installed cost difference between PEM unit and recuperated microturbine
is $900/kW ($1,832/kW - $932/kW). At 3-year payback, this will result in $300/kW difference
in annual capital recovery. The PEM unit, however, is more efficient (33% vs. 23.1%, on HHV
basis). At fuel cost of $4/million Btu and 30% load factor for the unit in providing load
following, the annual saving on fuel is $46.6/kW. This is not sufficient to compensate for the
$300/kW capital cost.
3-9
10093036
20
18 MTG only
hybrid (non-recup. MTG)
Cost of Electricity, Cents/kWh 16
14 MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)
12
hybrid (recup. MTG)

10
MTG only
8 hybrid (recup. MTG)
6 7 year payback
ratio of base load to peak demand: 0.25
4
$7/million Btu fuel
$5/million Btu fuel

2
$3/million Btu fuel
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Load Factor of Load Following Unit, %
Figure 3-3
Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following Unit (7 year payback,
0.25 base load to peak demand ratio)
20
18
16 MTG only

Cost of Electricity, Cents/kWh
14
MTG only
MTG only
8 hybrid (non-recup. MTG)
hybrid (recup. MTG)
6
7 year payback
4
$7/million Btu fuel
$5/million Btu fuel

2
$3/million Btu fuel
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 3-4
Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following Unit (7 year payback, 0.5 base
load to peak demand ratio)
3-10
10093036
20
18
16
MTG only
14

12
hybrid (recup. MTG)
MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)
8 MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)
6
7 year payback
4
$7/million Btu fuel

2
$5/million Btu fuel
$3/million Btu fuel
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 3-5
30
25
MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)

MTG only
15
hybrid (recup. MTG)

MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)
10
3 year payback
5
$7/million Btu fuel
$5/million Btu fuel
$3/million Btu fuel

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 3-6
3-11
10093036
20
no hybrid
18

MTG only
14
hybrid (recup. MTG)
12
hybrid (recup. MTG)
MTG only
10
3 year payback
6 ratio of base load to peak demand: 0.5
$7/million Btu fuel

4
$5/million Btu fuel
2 $3/million B tu fuel
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Load Factor of Load Following Unit
Figure 3-7
Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following Unit (3 year payback, 0.5 base
load to peak demand ratio)
20
18
MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)

MTG only
hybrid (recup. MTG)
12
hybrid (recup. MTG)
10 MTG only
8
3 year payback
6
$7/million Btu fuel

4
$5/million Btu fuel
$3/million Btu fuel
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Figure 3-8
3-12
10093036

It should be noted that another advantage of the hybrid system as compared to the “turbine only”
or “PEM only” case is that it has two generators instead of one. If each generator has 95%
availability, the combined system should have 99.75% availability (1-0.05 x 0.05) to provide
some power generation capacity (the smaller one of the two generators). This availability would
approach the 99.8% availability of the grid service. If the load demand is large and multiple
turbines and PEM units are used, then the availability could even surpass that of the grid service.
3-13
10093036
10093036
4
MICROTURBINE--BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE
HYBRID FOR UPS AND GRID-INDEPENDENCE
APPLICATIONS
The economics of two applications for hybrid use of microturbine and battery energy storage
were assessed. The first application uses battery as a reservoir to level off the load demand on
microturbines. This minimizes the microturbine generation capacity and cost. With the battery to
supply backup power, it also offers users the flexibility to be grid independent. The second
application uses microturbines to extend the ride-through time of a battery-based UPS system. In
the first application, the economics were compared with the turbine only case. In the second
applications, the breakeven ride-through time beyond which microturbine starts to be more
economical than extended battery storage was evaluated and calculated.
For the load leveling application, the analysis shows that the cost saving of using a smaller
turbine is not sufficient to compensate for the cost of the battery system if the time span of load
peaks is long. However, if the load profile has needle type of peaks with a time span of the peaks
less than 1 hour, the hybrid system could be economical. The hybrid system is also necessary for
grid independent operation because the battery included can maintain the power quality, such as
providing stable voltage and frequency during startup of a motor or sudden load changes. For the
UPS application, the analysis shows that microturbine can be cost competitive with battery when
the ride-through time required is more than 1.05 hour for 7-year payback and 1.5 hours for 3-
year payback.
Described below are the general performance and cost characteristics of applicable battery and
microturbine technologies, followed by a summary and discussion of the economic analysis of
the two hybrid system applications.
4.1 Performance and Costs of Applicable Battery Technologies
4.1.1 Types of Batteries
There are many secondary (rechargeable) battery technologies available for the two applications:
lead-acid, alkali (nickel-iron, nickel-cadmium, nickel-zinc), sodium-sulfur, nickel-metal hydride,
zinc-bromine, sodium-nickel chloride, nickel-hydrogen, silver-metal hydride, lithium-molten
salt, lithium-solid polymer, and lithium-ion. Many of these battery technologies have substantial
weight advantages over the lead-acid battery but all of them are more expensive. Some of them
also suffer excessive self-discharge rates or low charge-discharge cycle efficiencies. For
stationary power generation where weight is not a critical issue, the most practical and
4-1
10093036
Microturbine--Battery Energy Storage Hybrid For UPS And Grid-Independence Applications

economical battery technology to use is still the lead-acid battery. Shown in Table 4-1 is a
comparison of costs, weights, and self-discharge rates of several types of battery. The costs given
are based on high volume production of 5 GWh/y.
Table 4-1
Comparison of Various Types of Battery
Cost Weight Self-

at C6 at C6 Discharge
Type of Battery $/kWh lb/kWh Rate, %/d
Lead-Acid 200-350 60-70 1-2
Nickel-Cadmium 700-900 40-50 10-15
Nickel-Iron 600-700 40-50 10-15
Nickel-Zinc 500-600 30-35 5-10
Nickel-Metal Hydride 600-702 35-40 2-3
Zinc-Bromine 200-300 30-35 15-20
Sodium-Sulfur 400-500 20-25 10-15
Lithium-Ion 400-600 20-25 4-6
The lead-acid battery can be further divided into flooded electrolyte and VRLA (valve regulated
lead acid) types. In the flooded electrolyte type, there are continuous water and electrolyte losses
due to the gassing process. Periodic maintenance is required to check the water level and
replenish the water and electrolyte. In the VRLA type, the battery is sealed and a pressure relief
valve (or simply a labyrinth seal) is used to prevent the pressure buildup by the gassing process
beyond a critical level. As the losses of water and electrolyte are negligible, the battery is
essentially maintenance free. However, the inhibitors required in the VRLA type to suppress the
gassing process also hinders the cell reactions and can lower the battery storage capacity and
efficiency by 10% or more.
For large battery systems (several MW or larger) wherein the maintenance cost and associated
inconvenience can be justified, the flooded electrolyte type battery is still used. But for small-
scale use (such as the two applications assessed here for distributed generation), the VRLA type
is preferred and is the basis for the economic analysis in this study.
4.1.2 Battery Capacity Rating
Batteries are usually rated by the ampere-hours delivered at a given discharge rate. The discharge
rate of a lead-acid battery is typically specified as the amp-hours delivered until voltage drops to
the knee of the voltage-capacity curve, with 1.75 volts per cell being a typical value set by
manufacturers. The total ampere-hours delivered when the battery completes the discharge to
the specified minimum voltage within 6 hours at a constant discharge current is called the
C6 capacity. If the discharge is completed in 8 hours, then it is called the C8 capacity, and so on
so forth. For fast discharge (such as C1 as opposed to C8), the amp-hours available is lower
because the large current rushed through the battery can lead to large internal resistance losses
4-2
10093036

and results in less efficient conversion of the stored chemical energy into ampere-hours
delivered.
A typical capacity-discharge time curve based on manufacturer’s specifications for VRLA

batteries is shown in Figure 4-1. It shows the capacity available can drop significantly as the
discharge time is shortened (or discharge rate becomes higher). For example, the battery capacity
at 5 minutes (300 seconds) is only 30% of that at 6-hours (C6).
1000.0
100.0
Battery Capacity, % of C6 Amp-h
10.0
1.0
0.1
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Battery Discharge Time, seconds
Figure 4-1
Lead-Acid Battery Capacity (VRLA Type) as Function of Discharge Time
4.1.3 Battery Life
The battery cycle life, which is the number of discharge cycles before the battery fails to deliver
80% of the original capacity, is also a function of the discharge time. For shallow discharges
(short discharge duration), such as that commonly seen on SLI (starting/lighting/ignition)
automobile battery, the cycle life can be as high as 2,000 cycles. For deep discharges (extended
discharge duration), the cycle life can be as low as 100 cycles. Batteries, however, can be
specially designed for frequent deep discharges as required in the load leveling application. They
can achieve the required cycle life (typically 600-800 cycles) by incorporating better heat
removal and other design measures or margins. As a result, this type of battery is more
expensive. For the UPS application, the battery has infrequent use. Thus, the cycle life is not a
major concern and the cost is lower. But the battery needs to have high discharge rate capability.
Due to natural decay, batteries also have a calendar life defined as the number of years before the
battery fails to deliver 80% of the original capacity. For lead-acid batteries, the expected life and
warranty are usually five years. Even though some manufacturers are currently working to
4-3
10093036

extend the life to as long as 10 years, this study assumed a 5-year life. For a battery to deliver the
required power throughout its life, this study sized the battery based on 80% of manufacturer’s
rated capacity for a new battery, i.e., the battery was oversized by 25% (1/0.8 = 1.25).
4.1.4 Total System and Its Efficiency
A complete battery system includes the battery itself, power electronics for AC/DC power
conversion during charging/discharging cycles, battery housing and heat ventilation facilities,
and control/sensing unit for both the power electronics and battery. For the UPS application, the
battery systems available commercially are usually contained in modular cabinets (usually
rectangular shape). Shown in Table 4-2 are the physical dimensions and weights of two selected
industrial-size units of 60 and 600 kW power delivery capacities with 15-minute battery run time
as offered by Toshiba and MGE, respectively.
Table 4-2
Weight and Physical Sizes of Example Battery-Based UPS Units
Toshiba MTG
60 kW 600 kW
Power Electronics Cabinet
Width, in 44 193
Height, in 63 75
Depth, in 32 33
Weight, lb 2,600 13,313
Control/Sensing Cabinet
Width, in 32 in above
Height, in 63 in above
Depth, in 32 in above
Weight, lb 2,600 in above
Battery Cabinet
(15 minute battery run time)
Width, in 46 81
Height, in 63 83
Depth, in 32 40
Cabinet weight, lb 1,548 9,000
Battery weight, lb 1,952 19,518
Total weight, lb 3,500 28,518
Total System Weight
lb 8,700 41,831
lb/kW 145 70
There are many UPS manufacturers and suppliers, but most of the units offered are less than
several kW and aimed for workstations and servers in homes and offices. These units are too
small for hybrid use with microturbines and thus were not considered in this study.
4-4
10093036

For the load-leveling application for distributed generation, the battery systems required will be
in the same capacity range as the industrial-size UPS units. It is envisioned that these units could
be purchased for this application. But the type of battery used and the storage capacity required
would be different from those of the UPS application.
Lead-acid batteries typically have a round-trip efficiency of 75-80%. The power conversion
efficiencies of power electronics typically are in the range of 92-96% for either AC to DC or DC
to AC. By considering other miscellaneous auxiliary power consumptions and losses, the overall
efficiency of a battery system is in the 65-75% range. For this study, the efficiency is assumed to
be 70%.
4.1.5 Battery System Capital and O&M Costs
In a battery system, the costs of power electronics and control/sensing unit depend on the power
delivery rating (kW) as shown in Figure 4-2. The data shown are average values of quotes from
several battery-based UPS suppliers. They are in good agreement with costs of power electronics
from other applications, such as for fuel cells, wind power, photovoltaic, and electric trolleys.
1,200
1,000
Power Electronics/Control Cost, $/kW
800
600
400
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
UPS Rating, kW
Figure 4-2
Cost of Power Electronic/Control System in UPS Unit
The costs of a battery system with its housing/ventilation facilities are proportional to the energy
stored (kWh). The costs based on C6 capacity rating, as used in this study, are $350/kWh for the
4-5
10093036

daily deep discharge battery required in the load leveling application and $220/kWh for the
infrequent use but high discharge rate battery required in the UPS application. In realty, the
battery costs vary depending on the manufacturers and purchase quantity. These complications
were neglected in this study.
As the battery costs given above are based on the C6 capacity rating, it is necessary to convert
the actual kWh rating to the C6 capacity rating by using Figure 4-1. For example, if the battery is
designed for 1-hour discharge at 10 kW level, the C6 capacity required would be
(1h)(10kW)/(80%) = 12.5 kWh, where the 80% is the capacity ratio of 1-hour discharge time to
the 6-h discharge time as read from Figure 4-1. To oversize the battery by 25% so that it has
sufficient design margin for its natural decay as mention in Chapter 4.1.3, the C6 capacity
required is (12.5 kWh)(1.25) = 15.625 kWh. If this battery is for load leveling application, the
battery cost would then be (15.625 kWh)($350/kWh) = $5,469. As the battery was assumed to
have 5-year life (see Chapter 4.1.3), the annual battery replacement cost is $1,094 (one fifth of
$5,469).
The installation cost of the battery system was assumed to be 50% of the total equipment cost
estimated by the procedure described above. Thus, the installed cost is 150% of the total
equipment cost. The installed cost is shown as a function of battery discharge time in Figures 4-3
and 4-4 for the load leveling and UPS applications, respectively. Shown in Figures 4-5 and 4-6
are the installed cost and annual replacement cost of battery (including its housing and
ventilation facilities) as a function of battery discharge time. A comparison of Figure 4-5 with
Figures 4-3 and 4-4 shows that the battery cost predominates the total system cost when the
battery discharge required becomes longer.
8,000
Load Leveling Application

7,000
30 kW
100 kW
300 kW
Installed Cost of Battery System, $/kW
6,000 600 kW
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Required Battery Discharge Time, h
Figure 4-3
Installed Battery System Cost as Function of Required Discharge Time (Load Leveling
Application)
4-6
10093036
5,000
30 kW
4,500 UPS Application
100 kW
4,000 300 kW
600 kW
Installed Cost of Battery System, $/kW
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 4-4
Installed Battery System Cost as Function of Required Discharge Time (UPS Application)
4-7
10093036

7,000
6,000
Installed Cost of Battery & its Housing, $/kW 5,000
4,000
3,000
UPS Application
2,000
1,000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Battery Discharge Time (or Ride Through Time), h
Figure 4-5
Installed Cost of Battery & Its Housing as Function of Battery Discharge Time
4-8
10093036
900
800
700
Battery Replacement Cost, $/kW/y
600
500
400
300 UPS Application
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 4-6
Battery Replacement Cost as Function of Required Discharge Time
The battery system generally requires no operator attendance. The maintenance cost, based on
blanket service agreements offered by several UPS manufacturers, was estimated to be
$30/kW/y.
It should be noted that the battery capacity and efficiency would decrease significantly if the
temperature drops substantially below 25 C. The battery life would be shorter if there are
significant temperature excursions above 25 C. These effects were neglected in this study by
assuming that the battery system is properly sheltered from ambient temperature variations, and
that necessary heat removal and ventilation are provided.
4.2 Performance and Costs of Applicable Microturbine Technologies
A recuperated microturbine was assumed for the load leveling application, which requires
continuous, base load operation. For the UPS application, the turbine selected is non-recuperated
as its use is very infrequent and efficiency is not the key requirement. The performance and costs
(capital and O&M) of these turbines are shown in Table 4-3. The data shown are based on ISO
condition (59 F, 15 C and 1 atm ambient conditions). How these data were derived was discussed
in Chapter 1.
4-9
10093036

For applications requiring turbine sizes larger than those shown in Table 4-3, it was assumed that
multiple turbines would be used. Thus, the turbine costs on $/kW basis stays the same regardless
of size. In both the load leveling and UPS applications, the ambient temperature could vary and
thus affect the turbine performance. This temperature variation was neglected in this study to
simplify the analysis. The ISO conditions used to estimate the turbine performance and costs
shown in Table 4-3 were assumed to represent the average ambient conditions.
Table 4-3
Microturbine Performance and Costs (Under ISO Conditions)
Recuperat- Non-
ed recuperated
Turbine Turbine
Air Flow
SCFM 768.80 627.85
lb/s 0.97 0.79
Fuel Flow
SCFM 11.36 18.68
Compressor/Expander 835 759
Permanent Magnet Generator 383 383
Combustor 849 744
Recuperator 5,796 ---
Micro-turbine Housing 878 878
Power Conditioner 6,458 6,458
Chassis/Enclosure 465 310
Fuel Compressor 3,804 4,976
Balance of Plant 1,524 1,136
Profit 8,397 6,258
Installation Cost 14,695 10,951
Total Installed Cost 44,084 32,852
$/kW 932 716
4-10
10093036
4.3 Economics of Load Leveling Application
In this application, the microturbine is the only source of power generation. Thus, the minimum
microturbine capacity required would be the average daily power demand plus the losses in the
battery system. The battery system is charged by the microturbine but when it is discharged to
level the load, it can deliver only 70% of the power received as indicated in Chapter 4.1.4. Thus,
the turbine has to be oversized to cover the loss associated with this battery inefficiency. On this
basis, the minimum turbine size required can be calculated as follows:
(Minimum turbine size, kW) = (Average daily power demand, kW) +

{(Daily electricity consumed above the generation capacity of the minimum size turbine,
kWh/d)/(battery efficiency) - (Daily electricity consumed above the generation capacity
of the minimum size turbine, kWh/d)}/(24 h/d)
The second term on the right of the equation above represents the efficiency loss in the battery
system. As the minimum turbine size is involved on both sides of the equation above, it can be
determined only by trial and error. This calculation can be carried out for each day of the year
and the largest size among the 365 days is the minimum size that the selected turbine needs to
be.
When the turbine used is larger than the minimum size, the battery system capacity required is
reduced. When the turbine size is the same as the peak demand, there is no need of battery
system and this becomes the turbine only case.
When the turbine is larger than the minimum size, it will operate at part load some of the time.
To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that the power demand was large enough that multiple
turbines were required. When part load operation is required, some of the turbines will be
shutdown with the remaining turbines operated at full load. This avoids the need to model
turbine part load performance in the analysis.
One issue faced by this hybrid use is that the turbines may not have sufficient time to charge the
battery if the adjacent peak-demand periods are too close together. Fortunately, this is not the
case for most load profiles of commercial buildings and light industries. Typical load profiles for
an office building are shown in Figure 4-7. It shows that the power demand does not cross above
and below the average demand all the time in a day. Rather, there is a block time during the mid-
day that the power requirement exceeds the average demand and there is a block time during the
night that the power requirement is below the average demand. The battery would be charged by
microturbines in the night and discharged to supplement the microturbine power generation
during the day.
In Figure 4-7, three load profiles are shown: summer weekdays, winter weekdays, and
weekends/holidays. The load profiles in reality vary day by day. But to simplify the analysis, it
was assumed that all summer weekdays, winter weekdays, and weekends/holidays have the same
profiles as shown. For each load profile, a minimum turbine size was calculated based on the
equation above. The turbine size chosen for illustration in Figure 4-7 is larger than any of the
three minimum turbine sizes. In the shaded area (only shown for the summer weekdays), the
4-11
10093036

power demand exceeds the turbine generation capacity and needs to be made up by the battery
system. The difference between the highest peak of the demand profiles and the turbine
generation capacity is the required power delivery capacity of the battery system. The maximum
time span of the shaded area is the required discharge time of the battery system. In this
particular example, the required battery discharge time for the winter weekdays is longer than
that for the summer weekdays. The battery system was sized for the longest discharge time, i.e.,
for the winter weekdays.
1.2 Winter Weekday Summer Weekday

Load Profile Load Profile Power Supplied by
Battey System
1.0
Battery System Minimum Turbine
Turbine Size for Winter
Power Rating
Load Demand, MW
Capacity Weekday
0.8
Ave. Demand of Ave. Demand of Minimum Turbine

0.6 Winter Weekday Summer Weekday Size for Summer
Weekday
0.4 Ave. Demand of

Minimum Turbine Size Weekend/Holiday Weekend/ Holiday
for Weekend/Holiday Load Profile
Battery System
Discharge Time
0.2 for Winter Weekdays
Battery System
Discharge Time
for Summer Weekdays
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of the Day
Figure 4-7
Battery Replacement Cost as Function of Required Discharge Time
The cost of electricity of using the hybrid system can be calculated as following:
Cost of electricity, $/kWh = {Annual capital recovery of microturbines +

Annual O&M Cost of microturbines + Annual Fuel Cost of microturbines +
Annual capital recovery of battery system + Annual O&M Cost of battery system +
Annual battery replacement cost}/{(Average power demand, kW)(8760 h/y)}
where,
(Annual capital recovery of microturbines) = (microturbine capacity, kW) * (recuperated turbine

capital cost in Table 4-2, $/kW)/(number of payback years)
(Annual O&M cost of microturbines) = {(electricity consumed when the power demand is lower
than the turbine generation capacity, kWh/y) + (electricity consumed above the turbine
4-12
10093036

generation capacity, kWh/y)/(battery system efficiency)} * (O&M cost of recuperated turbine in
Table 4-2, cents/kWh)($/100 cents)
(Annual fuel cost of microturbines) = {(electricity provided by microturbine, kWh/y) +

(electricity provided by battery system, kWh/y)/(battery system efficiency)} * {(3413
Btu/kWh)/(recuperated turbine HHV efficiency in Table 4-2)/106} * (fuel cost, $/million Btu
HHV)
(Annual capital recovery of battery system) = (battery system installed cost, $/kW, as read from
Figure 4-3) * (power rating of battery system, kW)/(number of payback years)
(Annual O&M cost of battery system) = (power rating of battery system, kW) * ($30/kW/y, see
Chapter 4.1.5)
(Annual battery replacement cost) = (power rating of battery system, kW) * (battery replacement
cost, $/kW/y, as read from Figure 4-6 for the load leveling case)
To illustrate the use of the formula above, the cost of electricity was analyzed based on the load
profiles shown in Figure 4-7. Four cases were studied as shown in Table 4-4. In the first case, the
minimum turbine size is used. The turbine size is then gradually increased in Cases 2-4. As the
turbine size increases, the battery system size required in terms of both the power rating and
discharge time is reduced. In Case 4, the turbine size matches the highest peak demand. Thus, no
battery system is required.
From the load profiles shown in Figure 4-7 and for a given turbine size, the daily consumptions
of electricity provided by the turbine and battery system for the summer weekdays, winter
weekdays, and weekends/holidays were calculated. In the analysis, the number of
weekends/holidays was calculated based on 52 weeks with 5 holidays. The remaining days of the
year were equally divided into summer and winter weekdays. The annual consumptions of
electricity as provided by the turbine and battery system were then determined. As expected, the
total consumptions of electricity from these two supply sources are the same for all cases. As the
power supplied by the battery system still comes from the turbine but with conversion losses, the
decrease of battery system size from Case 1 to Case 4 reduces the annual electricity generation
required from the turbine.
Table 4-4 shows that the capital cost, annual cost, and cost of electricity all increase from Case 4
to Case 1. This means the cost saving of using a smaller turbine is not sufficient to compensate
for the cost increase of a larger battery system. The battery system is simply too expensive.
Figure 4-3 shows the battery system can cost more than several thousand dollars per kW if the
required discharge time is several hours. In the load leveling service, the required battery
discharge time is usually not short as can be seen from the typical load profiles shown in Figure
4-7.
Even though the analysis above is based on the specific load profiles shown in Figure 4-7, it can
be concluded in general that the hybrid system offers no economical advantage over the turbine
only case. However, if the load profile has needle type of peaks with a time span of the peaks
4-13
10093036

less than 1 hour, the hybrid system could be economical. The hybrid system is also necessary for
grid independent operation because the battery included can maintain the power quality, such as
providing stable voltage and frequency during startup of a motor or sudden load changes.
Table 4-4
Comparison of Costs of Electricity for Various Combined Uses of Microturbine and Battery
System ($4/million Btu fuel cost, 7 year payback)
Case Number 1 2 3 4
Turbine Size, kW 740 800 900 1,053
Battery System
Power Delivery, kW 313 253 153 0
Discharge Time, h 10.9 10 8.7 0
Electricity Provided by Turbine, kWh/d
Summer Weekdays 14,612 15,212 16,084 16,824
Winter Weekdays 10,369 15,649 16,564 16,875
Weekends/Holidays 10,626 10,626 10,626 10,626
Electricity Provided by Battery, kWh/d
Summer Weekdays 2,212 1,612 741 0
Winter Weekdays 6,507 1,226 312 0
Weekends/Holidays 0 0 0 0
Number of Days in a Year
Summer Weekdays 128 128 128 128
Winter Weekdays 127 127 127 127
Weekends/Holidays 110 110 110 110
Electricity Provided by Turbine, kWh/y 4,356,070 5,103,466 5,331,198 5,465,565
Electricity Provided by Battery, kWh/y 1,109,495 362,099 134,367 0
Total Power Consumed, kWh/y 5,465,565 5,465,565 5,465,565 5,465,565
Total Turbine Power Production, kWh/y 5,941,063 5,620,750 5,523,151 5,465,565
Micro-turbine Installed Cost, $ 689,680 745,600 838,800 981,396
Battery System Installed Cost, $ 2,316,200 1,695,100 948,600 0
Total Capital Requirement, $ 3,005,880 2,440,700 1,787,400 981,396
Annual Capital Recovery of Turbine, $/y 98,526 106,514 119,829 140,199
Annual O&M Cost of Turbine, $/y 89,116 84,311 82,847 81,983
Annual Fuel Cost of Turbine, $/y 316,331 299,276 294,080 291,014
Annual Capital Recovery of Battery System, $/y 330,886 242,157 135,514 0
Annual O&M Cost of Battery System, $/y 9,390 7,590 4,590 0
Annual Battery Replacement Cost, $/y 281,700 215,050 113,220 0
Tota Annual Cost, $/y 1,125,949 954,899 750,080 513,197
Cost of Electricity, cents/kWh 20.6 17.5 13.7 9.4
4.4 Economics of UPS Application
UPS systems can be operated in either on-line or off-line mode. In the on-line mode, power
supply from an outside source or generator is routed through the power electronics in the UPS
system to deliver high power quality. In the off-line mode, the UPS system is used only to supply
4-14
10093036

backup power. As the current study is to evaluate the use of microturbine to extend the UPS’ ride
through time, it focuses mainly on the off-line mode of operation.
The evaluation basically involved a tradeoff between the turbine cost and cost of increased
battery storage for the longer ride through time. As the UPS system does not operate frequently,
the operating costs of both the UPS system and microturbine were ignored.
An UPS system is usually designed with minimum 5-minute ride through time even if there is a
generator available to extend the ride through time and the generator can be brought on line in
less than 5 minutes. The reason is that in case the generator fails to startup, this would give time
for the user to orderly shut down the load or to find other solutions. With this design provision in
mind, the annual costs of the key components (capital recovery of the battery and turbine, annual
battery replacement cost) to be traded off between the hybrid system and “UPS only” can be
calculated as following (note: the power conditioner cost is excluded from the comparison
because it is the same between the two cases):
(Annual cost of hybrid system, $/kW/y) = (Capital cost of non-recuperated microturbine from
Table 4-2, $/kW)/(number of payback years) + (Battery cost for UPS application as read from
Figure 4-5 based on 5-minute discharge time, $/kW)/(number of payback years) + (Battery
replacement cost for UPS application as read from Figure 4-6 based on 5-minute discharge time,
$/kW/y)
(Annual cost of UPS only case, $/kW/y) = (Battery cost for UPS application as read from Figure
4-5 based on a given discharge time, $/kW)/(number of payback years) + (Battery replacement
cost for UPS application as read from Figure 4-5 based on a given discharge time, $/kW/y)
When these two annual costs are equal, then the given discharge time is the breakeven ride-
through time. The hybrid system would be more economical to use than the “UPS only” case if
the required ride-through time is longer than the breakeven value. Shown in Figure 4-8 is the
breakeven ride-through time calculated for paybacks of 3 and 7 years.
In Figure 4-8, the annual cost of “UPS only” case increases as the ride-through time required is
increased while the annual cost of the hybrid system is constant. For 7-year payback, the hybrid
system starts to be more economical than the “UPS only” case when the ride-through time
required is longer than 1.05 hours. For 3-year payback, the breakeven ride-through time is 1.5
hours.
4-15
10093036
1,800
1,600
Annual Capital Recovery of Battery and Turbine
1,400
+ Annual Battery Replacement, $/kW/y
1,200 UPS Only (3 year payback)
1,000
UPS Only (7 year payback)
800
600
400 Hybrid System (3 year payback)
200 Hybrid System (7 year payback)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Breakeven Battery Discharge Time (Ride Through Time), h

Ride Through Time Breakeven
for 7 year payback Ride Through Time
for 3 year payback
Figure 4-8
Breakeven Ride Through Time Between Hybrid and “UPS Only” Systems
4-16
10093036
5
FUEL-ASPIRATED MICROTURBINE
Fuel gas compression has been a major issue for microturbines due to the added capital and
operating costs, efficiency reduction, and decrease of system reliability/availability. The fuel
compressor could amount to 15-35% of the total equipment cost and the parasitic power required
could be 5-10% of the total power produced. Many of the system troubles encountered in recent
microturbine demonstrations or initial commercial operations were due to fuel compressor
failures. These problems have created a strong desire to eliminate the fuel compressor. One
method to achieve this goal is to aspirate the fuel gas into the turbine air intake to let the turbine
compressor boost the fuel gas pressure. Solo Energy in Oakland, California is currently
developing a microturbine with this fuel feed method.
Fuel-aspirated turbines, however, will need to use combustion catalyst because the fuel entering
the combustor is very dilute after being mixed with the entire turbine air feed. With natural gas
as the fuel gas, the fuel concentration in the combustor feed is only 1-1.5% by volume for
recuperated turbines and 2.5-3.5 % for non-recuperated turbines. Currently, combustion catalyst
is very expensive and has demonstrated short life. Also, an electric heater or auxiliary burner will
be required during the turbine startup to preheat the combustion catalyst to its operating
temperature. In addition, there are concerns that the fuel-air mixture could prematurely ignite as
it is heated in the turbine compressor and recuperator.
The analysis shows that the fuel-aspiration can improve the efficiency from 25.6 % to 28.2 %
and reduce the capital cost by 15% for recuperated turbine while it can improve the efficiency
from 15.1% to 16.5% and reduce the capital cost by 30% for non-recuperated turbine.
Provided below are details of the assessment, including an analysis of the technical risks, such as
the auto-ignition of the fuel-air mixture.
5.1 Performance
Shown in Figures 5-1 to 5-2 are, respectively, the system configurations and major process
streams of regular and fuel-aspirated microturbines operated under a recuperated cycle. Similar
configurations and process streams for simple cycle operation are shown in Figures 5-3 and 5-4.
Summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 are, respectively, the system parameters used and the turbine
performance estimated for these cases. The performance of the regular turbine operated under
recuperated cycle duplicates that used in a previous EPRI study on microturbine component cost
analysis1.
1
EPRI Report TR-114182, Assessment of Microturbines as Distributed Generators, December 1999.
5-1
10093036
Fuel-Aspirated Microturbine
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
7
combustor
natural 1
gas 8
high speed
generator
9
5
power
conditioner 10
4 11
6
recuperator
12
3 air
air filter turbine
exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Compressed Air to Air to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to Recuperator
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Generator Air Recuperator Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Recuperator Exhaust
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 77.26 77.26 77.26 77.26 77.26 76.13 76.13 76.13 76.13 76.13
O2, vol% 20.67 20.67 20.67 20.67 20.67 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.41 17.41
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96 4.96
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0086 0.0086 0.9667 0.9667 0.9667 0.9667 0.9667 0.9752 0.9752 0.9752 0.9752 0.9752
Total, kg/sec 0.0039 0.0039 0.4389 0.4389 0.4389 0.4389 0.4389 0.4427 0.4427 0.4427 0.4427 0.4427
Total, SCFM 11.36 11.36 769.00 769.00 769.00 769.00 769.00 780.65 780.65 780.65 780.65 780.65
Total, ACFM 8.48 2.88 767.52 792.04 298.46 314.17 579.31 853.27 861.89 2,347.97 2,371.69 1,519.20
Temperature, F 60 390 59 70 425 425 1,091 1,700 1,700 1,203 1,203 552
Temperature, C 16 199 15 21 218 218 588 927 927 651 651 289
Pressure, psia 19.70 94.70 14.70 14.55 64.48 61.25 58.19 55.86 55.31 15.63 15.47 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 6.44 1.00 0.99 4.39 4.17 3.96 3.80 3.76 1.06 1.05 1.00
Figure 5-1
Recuperated Microturbine with Fuel Compression
5-2
10093036
7
combustor
8
high speed
generator
9
5
power 3
conditioner 10
4 11
2 6
air recuperator
air filter 12
natural 1
gas turbine
exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Stream Name Natural Air Air after Combined Compressed Air/NG to Air/NG to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to Recuperator
Gas Feed Feed Filter/Gen. NG + Air Air/NG Recuperator Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Recuperator Exhaust
CH4, vol% 93.62 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34
C2H6, vol% 3.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 77.26 77.26 76.17 76.17 76.17 76.17 76.15 76.15 76.15 76.15 76.15
O2, vol% 20.67 20.67 20.37 20.37 20.37 20.37 17.46 17.46 17.46 17.46 17.46
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 2.07 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 4.91 4.91 4.91 4.91 4.91
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0084 0.9662 0.9662 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746 0.9746
Total, kg/sec 0.0038 0.4386 0.4386 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425 0.4425
Total, SCFM 11.18 768.60 768.60 779.78 779.78 779.78 779.78 780.06 780.06 780.06 780.06 780.06
Total, ACFM 8.34 767.13 792.04 803.28 301.84 317.72 584.45 830.99 839.38 2,333.32 2,356.89 1,484.48
Temperature, F 60 59 70 70 423 423 1,083 1,700 1,700 1,194 1,194 530

Temperature, C 16 15 21 21 217 217 584 927 927 645 645 276
Pressure, psia 19.70 14.70 14.55 14.55 64.48 61.25 58.19 57.32 56.75 15.63 15.47 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 1.00 0.99 0.99 4.39 4.17 3.96 3.90 3.86 1.06 1.05 1.00
Figure 5-2
Recuperated Microturbine without Fuel Compression (Fuel-Aspirated Turbine)
5-3
10093036
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
6 7
natural 1
combustor
gas
high speed
generator
5 8
power
conditioner 9
10
3 air turbine
air filter exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Compressed Air to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Generator Air Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Atmosphere
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 77.26 77.26 77.26 77.26 75.02 75.02 75.02 75.02
O2, vol% 20.67 20.67 20.67 20.67 14.20 14.20 14.20 14.20
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 7.79 7.79 7.79 7.79
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0141 0.0141 0.7894 0.7894 0.7894 0.7894 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035
Total, kg/sec 0.0064 0.0064 0.3584 0.3584 0.3584 0.3584 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648
Total, SCFM 18.68 18.68 628.02 628.02 628.02 628.02 647.17 647.17 647.17 647.17
Total, ACFM 13.94 5.16 626.81 649.90 244.86 257.75 672.01 678.80 2,013.48 2,033.82
Temperature, F 60 367 59 73 429 429 1,700 1,700 1,174 1,174

Temperature, C 16 186 15 23 221 221 927 927 635 635
Pressure, psia 19.70 84.70 14.70 14.55 64.48 61.25 58.80 58.22 14.85 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 5.76 1.00 0.99 4.39 4.17 4.00 3.96 1.01 1.00
Figure 5-3
Non-Recuperated Microturbine with Fuel Compression
5-4
10093036
6 7
catalytic
combustor
high speed
generator 8
5
power 3
conditioner 9
4
2
air 10
air filter
natural 1 turbine
gas exhaust
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Stream Name Natural Air Air after Combined Compressed Air/NG to Combustor Gas to Expander Exhaust to
Gas Feed Feed Filter/Gen. NG + Air Air/NG Combustor Exhaust Expander Exhaust Atmosphere
CH4, vol% 93.62 2.71 2.71 2.71
C2H6, vol% 3.12 0.09 0.09 0.09
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.03 0.03 0.03
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.02 0.02 0.02 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 77.26 77.26 75.07 75.07 75.07 75.01 75.01 75.01 75.01
O2, vol% 20.67 20.67 20.07 20.07 20.07 14.19 14.19 14.19 14.19
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 2.07 2.01 2.01 2.01 7.81 7.81 7.81 7.81
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0141 0.7894 0.7894 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035 0.8035
Total, kg/sec 0.0064 0.3584 0.3584 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648 0.3648
Total, SCFM 18.72 627.96 627.96 646.68 646.68 646.68 647.16 647.16 647.16 647.16
Total, ACFM 13.97 626.75 649.90 668.73 250.52 263.70 654.94 661.55 2,002.67 2,022.90
Temperature, F 60 59 73 72 424 424 1,700 1,700 1,165 1,165

Temperature, C 16 15 23 22 218 218 927 927 630 630
Pressure, psia 19.70 14.70 14.55 14.55 64.48 61.25 60.34 59.73 14.85 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 1.00 0.99 0.99 4.39 4.17 4.10 4.06 1.01 1.00
Figure 5-4
Non-Recuperated Microturbine without Fuel Compression (Fuel-Aspirated Turbine)
5-5
10093036
Table 5-1
Major System Parameters Assumed in the Estimate of Microturbine Performance
Component System Parameter Recuperated Turbine Non-Recuperated Turbine
Regular Fuel- Regular Fuel-

Aspirated Aspirated
Compressor Polytropic Efficiency, % 82 82 82 82
Inlet dP/P, % 1 1 1 1
Outlet dP/P, % 5 5 5 5
Total Pressure Ratio 4.167 4.167 4.167 4.167
Mechanical Efficiency, % 99 99 99 99
Recuperator Effectiveness, % 85 85 N/A N/A
Exhaust Side dP/P, % 5 5 N/A N/A
Pressure Side dP/P, % 5 5 N/A N/A
Heat Loss dQ/Q, % 2 2 N/A N/A
Combustor Outlet Temperature, F 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,700
dP/P, % 4 1.5 4 1.5
Expander Polytropic Efficiency, % 85 85 85 85
Inlet dP/P, % 1 1 1 1
Outlet dP/P, % 1 1 1 1
Total Pressure Ratio 3.61 3.704 4.0 4.104
Mechanical Efficiency, % 99 99 99 99
Fuel Adiabatic Efficiency, % 60 N/A 60 N/A

Compressor
Inlet Pressure, psia 5 N/A 5 N/A
Discharge Pressure, psia 84.7 N/A 84.7 N/A
System (motor, etc.) Eff., % 62 N/A 62 N/A
Electrical Generator Efficiency, % 95 95 95 95
Power Conditioner Eff., % 95 95 95 95
Ambient Temperature, F 59 59 59 59
Condition
Pressure, psia 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7
5-6
10093036
Table 5-2
System Performance Comparison Between Regular and Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines
Recuperated Turbine Non-Recuperated Turbine

Fuel- Fuel-
Regular Aspirated Regular Aspirated
Air Flow
SCFM 768.80 768.80 627.85 627.85
lb/s 0.97 0.97 0.79 0.79
Fuel Flow
SCFM 11.36 11.18 18.68 18.72
Million Btu/h (HHV) 0.70 0.69 1.15 1.15
Expander Power Output, kW 145.41 147.94 129.25 131.36
Compressor Power Need, kW 90.01 91.19 73.85 75.76
Net Turbine Shaft Power, kW 55.40 56.75 55.40 55.60
Generator Loss, kW 2.77 2.84 2.77 2.78
Power Conditioner Loss, kW 2.63 2.70 2.63 2.64
Turbine-generator Output, kW 50.00 51.22 50.00 50.18
Fuel Compressor, kW 2.71 --- 4.10 ---
Net Power Output, kW 47.29 51.22 45.90 50.18
Efficiency (HHV), % 23.11 25.43 13.64 14.88
Efficiency (LHV), % 25.64 28.22 15.13 16.51
All the performance data were estimated by a microturbine simulation program developed
specifically for this study. Rationale for the system parameter selection has been discussed in the
previous EPRI study mentioned above.
The regular turbines shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-3 are based on 50 kW net power output before
the parasitic power for the fuel compressor is subtracted. In both cases, the filtered air is used to
cool the high-speed generator before it is fed to the turbine compressor, thus eliminating a
separate cooling system for the generator. Most of the current microturbines have incorporated
this design.
The fuel-aspirated turbines shown in Figures 5-2 and 5-4 use the same airflow rates as those in
the regular turbine cases to provide a common basis for comparison. In these cases, the filtered
air is also used to cool the high-speed generator before it is fed to the turbine compressor. The
fuel gas is aspirated into the air stream after it leaves the high-speed generator.
In the regular turbines, a significant pressure drop of the air stream in the combustor is required
in order to achieve a good dispersion and mixing with the fuel gas. In the fuel-aspirated turbines,
the fuel and air streams are already thoroughly mixed by the turning action of the turbine
compressor. Thus, the pressure drop in the combustor is much smaller and will be mainly that
through the combustion catalyst. As the combustion catalyst is typically of honeycomb or
corrugated plate structure, the gas pressure drop through it is very small, no more than several
inches of water (1 psi = 29 inches of water). A total pressure drop of 1.5 % (approximately 1 psi)
5-7
10093036
is assumed for the combustor (see Table 5-1) to take into account other possible fluid dynamic
losses, such as the flow contraction and expansion in the combustor inlet/outlet.
As shown in Table 5-2, the fuel-aspirated turbines have higher system efficiencies than the
regular turbines for both recuperated and simple cycle operations. The main reasons are:
• The additional power required by the turbine compressor to boost the fuel gas pressure
is less than the power consumption of the fuel compressor. This is due to the higher
efficiency of the turbine compressor than the fuel compressor. As seen in Table 5-1, the
turbine compressor has 82% efficiency while the fuel compressor has only 60%
efficiency. Besides, the fuel compressor has electric motor efficiency losses and
parasitic power consumption for the lube oil pumps and control system while the turbine
compressor does not have.
• The expander produces more power due to the lower pressure drop in the catalytic
combustion, i.e., the lower combustor pressure drop allows a higher gas expansion ratio
in the expander.
5.2 Economics
5.2.1 Capital and O&M Cost Estimates
Table 5-3 is a compares the capital and O&M costs between regular and fuel-aspirated turbines.
The capital cost for the regular recuperated turbine (first case in Table 5-3) is from the previous
EPRI report mentioned above. In that report, the microturbine costs are given at two production
volumes: 1,000 and 10,000 units/y. The data shown in Table 5-3 correspond to the 10,000 units/y
production, which represents the volume expected at full commercialization. The capital costs
for the other three cases were estimated as follows:
• Compressor/expender, permanent magnet generator, and power conditioner: These costs

were prorated with 0.65 power factor1 from the regular recuperated turbine case based
on the horsepower or kW ratings of these components.
• Combustor: For the regular non-recuperated turbine, the cost was prorated with 0.65
power factor from the regular recuperated turbine case based on the airflow ratio. For
the fuel-aspirated turbines, the costs were estimated from the key components: burner
casing, combustion catalyst, and startup electric heater/auxiliary burner. Compared with
regular combustors, catalytic combustors are simpler in structure because they don’t
require elaborate air/fuel dispersion and mixing (see the discussion given in Chapter
5.1). However, they do require a startup electric heater or auxiliary burner. It was
assumed that the combined cost of the burner casing and startup electric heater/auxiliary
burner would be the same as the non-catalytic combustor cost. Thus, the only additional
1
Component cost = C *(Component Capacity)X, where X is the power factor and C is a constant.
5-8
10093036
combustor cost over the regular turbine case is the catalyst cost. As discussed in Chapter
7, combustion catalysts for gas turbine applications are still under development. Only
one developer, Catalytica, has recently reached the point of initial commercial offer.
This offer was made through a 1.5 MW Kawasaki gas turbine. The catalyst cost (called
Xonon catalyst) in this commercial offer is $45,000, or $30/kW. This study used the
same $/kW to estimate the combustion catalyst cost.
• Recuperator: The costs were prorated linearly from the regular recuperated turbine case
according to the surface area required.
• Fuel compressor: For the regular non-recuperated turbine, the cost was prorated with
0.65 power factor from the regular recuperated turbine case based on the fuel flow ratio.
For the fuel-aspirated turbines, this cost is eliminated.
• Microturbine housing: This cost item was kept the same for all cases.
• Chassis/enclosure: For this item, no cost differential is made between the regular and
fuel aspirated turbines. There is, however, cost difference between the recuperated and
non-recuperated turbine cases. The cost of the latter was assumed to be two thirds that
of the former to take into account the lack of a recuperator.
• Balance of plant, profit, and installation: These costs were factored from the total
equipment cost based on the same ratio used in the regular recuperated turbine case.
Table 5-3
Capital and O&M Cost Comparison Between Regular and Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines
Recuperated Turbine Non-Recuperated Turbine

Fuel- Fuel-
Compressor/Expander 835 844 759 768
Permanent Magnet Generator 383 389 383 384
Combustor 849 2,386 744 2,250
Recuperator 5,796 6,470 --- ---
Micro-turbine Housing 878 878 878 878
Power Conditioner 6,458 6,560 6,458 6,473
Chassis/Enclosure 465 465 310 310
Fuel Compressor 3,804 --- 4,976 ---
Balance of Plant 1,524 1,408 1,136 866
Profit 8,397 7,760 6,258 4,771
Installation Cost 14,695 13,580 10,951 8,350
Total Installed Cost 44,084 40,740 32,852 25,050
$/kW 932 795 716 499
O&M Cost, c/kWh 1.50 1.39 1.12 0.85
5-9
10093036
The O&M cost for the regular recuperated turbine (first case in Table 5-3) is from the previous
EPRI report mentioned above. As microturbines require no operator attendance, the O&M cost is
basically only the maintenance cost. Microturbines, including the fuel compressors, have not had
long operating experience. Without sufficient operation data to fully establish the maintenance
cost, the O&M costs for other three cases were estimated from the first case by the same ratio
relative to the capital cost ($/kW).
Table 5-3 shows that the fuel-aspirated turbines have lower capital and O&M costs than the
regular turbines for both recuperated and simple cycle operations. Elimination of the fuel
compressor in the simple cycle results in greater cost savings than in the recuperated cycle
because the fuel gas compressor is correspondingly larger in the simple cycle.
5.2.2 Cost of Electricity
Table 5-4 compares the cost of electricity between regular and fuel-aspirated turbines operated in
recuperated cycles. The cost of electricity was calculated from the capital and O&M cost
estimates described above for 3 and 7 year paybacks (representing consumer-ownership and 3rd
party-ownership financing, respectively). Natural gas was assumed to cost $4/million Btu, and
the turbine on-stream factor was assumed at 80%. In the fuel-aspirated turbine case, there is
annual combustion catalyst replacement cost. In Kawasaki’s commercial offer of the 1.5 MW
gas turbine mentioned above, Catalytica guarantees 8,000 hour life (about one year) for their
combustion catalyst. This was used as the basis to estimate the annual replacement cost. A more
detailed discussion of the combustion catalyst life is provided in Chapter 6.
Table 5-4
Comparison of Cost of Electricity Between Regular and Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines for
Recuperated Cycle Operation at 80% On-stream Factor and $4/million Btu Natural Gas Cost
3 year payback 7 year payback

Fuel- Fuel-
Annual Cost, $/y
Capital Charge 14,695 13,580 6,298 5,820
O&M Cost 4,971 4,976 4,971 4,976
Catalyst Replacement --- 1,537 --- 1,537
Fuel Cost ($4/million Btu) 19,580 19,269 19,580 19,269
Total 39,245 39,361 30,848 31,601
Power Generated, kWh/y 331,391 358,936 331,391 358,936
Cost of Electricity, cents/kWh 11.84 10.97 9.31 8.80
5-10
10093036
Table 5-4 shows that the fuel-aspirated microturbine is more economical than the regular turbine
for recuperated cycle operation. The same conclusion can be made over a wide range of fuel
costs as shown in Figure 5-5.
19.00
Regular Turbine
17.00 _____
3 year payback Fuel-AspiratedTurbine
----- 7 year payback
Regular Turbine
15.00
Cost of Electricity, cents/kWh
Fuel-AspiratedTurbine
13.00
11.00
9.00
7.00
5.00
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Fuel Cost, $/Million Btu
Figure 5-5
Costs of Electricity for Regular and Fuel-Aspirated Microturbines as a Function of Natural Gas
Cost (Recuperated Cycle at 80% On-stream Factor)
For simple cycle operation, the economics are mainly dictated by the capital cost rather than the
cost of electricity as most of the applications are for peak shaving and backup power supply.
From the $/kW cost data shown in Table 5-3, the fuel-aspirated turbine is also more economic
than the regular turbine under simple cycle operation.
The reliabilities of both microturbines and fuel compressors have not been fully established.
Their impacts on the overall economics are difficult to assess rigorously at this point. This study
takes into account the cost benefit of higher reliability expected from the fuel-aspirated turbines
by the lower O&M costs given in Table 5-3 for these cases.
The economic comparison above, however, has not taken into account the differences in
emissions. With catalytic combustion, the fuel-aspirated turbine is expected to have emissions in
the 1-2 ppmv range for NOx, 3-5 ppmv for CO, and 1-2 ppmv for UHC while the regular
turbines have emissions in the 9-25 ppmv for NOx, 20-40 ppmv for CO, and 5-10 ppmv for
UHC (natural gas fired, corrected for 15% O2). This emission advantage will become more
important as air emission standards become more stringent in the future.
Without fuel compressors, the fuel-aspirated turbines also have lower plot area (footprint)
requirements than the regular turbines. Microturbines and fuel compressors typically have plot
5-11
10093036
area requirements in the 0.4-0.6 ft2/kW and 0.1-0.3 ft2/kW ranges, respectively. The elimination
of the fuel compressor could lead to a space saving of 15-50% for microturbine installation.
5.3 Technical Risks
5.3.1 Flammability Limits
Each fuel-air mixture has a lower flammability limit and a higher flammability limit, with the
limits expressed as volume percent of the fuel in the mixture. The mixture is flammable in the
range between these two limits. Outside this range, the mixture is either too lean or too rich in
fuel to be flammable. The auto-ignition risk in fuel-aspirated microturbines is concerned mainly
with the lower flammability limit.
For methane, the lower flammability limit is 5% at standard condition (25 C and 1 atm) 1. The
limit is decreased only slightly by an increase of pressure2. Within the operating range of
microturbines, the effect of pressure can be ignored. The limit is, however, significantly affected
by temperature. The limit decreases by 8% for every 100 C temperature rise3. As shown in
Figures 5-2 and 5-4, the fuel-air mixture can reach 218 C and 584 C prior to the combustor in the
non-recuperated and recuperated turbines, respectively. The corresponding lower flammability
limits are thus 4.23% (5% x {100% - 8% x [218-25]/100}) and 2.76% (5% x {100% - 8% x
[584-25]/100}), respectively. As the fuel concentrations in the turbine compressor air inlet are
2.83% and 1.39% for the non-recuperated and recuperated turbines, respectively, the risk of
auto-ignition should be negligible.
The analysis above assumes that all the combustible components in natural gas have the same
lower flammability limit as methane. In reality, these limits are different. For ethane, propane,
butane, pentane, and hexane, the limits are 3%, 2.2%, 1.7%, 1.4%, and 1.2%, respectively. For a
mixture of these combustibles, the composite lower flammability limit can be calculated as
1/[(C1/L1) + (C2/L2) + - - - - + (Cn/Ln)], where C1, C2, - - -, Cn are volume fractions of the
components in the mixture and L1, L2, - - -, Ln are their lower flammability limits. For natural
gases that are mostly methane, the simplification made in the analysis above will not introduce
significant error. Fuel gases containing significant quantities of higher hydrocarbons, however,
could fall within the flammability limits.
The analysis so far is based on the turbines operated at ISO condition (59 F ambient
temperature), 1,700 F turbine inlet temperature, and 4.167 compression ratio. As air at the
turbine inlet becomes hotter at higher ambient temperature, the fuel-air mixture temperature prior
to the combustor can become higher. For future advanced microturbines, which might use higher
turbine inlet temperatures and possibly also higher compression ratios, the fuel-air mixture
temperature prior to the combustor could also become higher due to the higher amount of
compression heat generated and heat recuperation from a hotter expander exhaust gas. For these
1
Frank T. Bodurtha, “Industrial Explosion Prevention and Protection”, McGraw Hill
2
Same as above
3
Same as above
5-12
10093036
advanced turbines, the required fuel to air ratio could increase as well as to provide the higher
turbine inlet temperature. A turbine simulation under these conditions (for ambient temperature
up to 100 F/37.8 C, turbine inlet temperature up 2000 F, compression ratio up to 5) shows that
the fuel concentration in the fuel/air mixture could be as close as 75% of the lower flammability
limit.
5.3.2 Auto-Ignition Temperature
As the analysis in Chapter 5.3.1 shows that the fuel concentration may not be very far below the
lower flammability limit, it is prudent to examine the auto-ignition characteristics by
hypothetically assuming the fuel-air mixture is in the flammability range. Generally, the auto-
ignition temperature decreases when the mixture exposure time to the temperature is increased,
the gas pressure is higher, and there is presence of catalytic substance, such as ferric oxide that
could be formed on compressor or recuperator surfaces as a result of oxidation. Auto-ignition
temperature, however, is relatively independent of gas composition. For methane, the auto-
ignition temperature follows the relationship shown in Figure 5-6. It shows that the auto-ignition
temperature drops by about 50 C when the turbine operating pressure is raised from 1 atm to the
4 atm. The presence of catalytic substance, however, can significantly reduce the auto-ignition
temperature—by more than 200 C.
The auto-ignition temperature is actually affected by many other factors, such as how fast the gas
is heated up and how heat is contained for the gas to reach the self-sustainable combustion.
Values reported in the literature usually correspond to 300 seconds (5 minutes) exposure time at
1 atm without catalytic effect. As the values reported have quite a spread, the data shown in
Figure 5-6 are only indicative for discussion purpose.
As mentioned previously, the fuel-air mixture will reach 218 C and 584 C prior to the combustor
in the non-recuperated turbine and recuperated turbines, respectively. According to Figure 5-6
(see the curve corresponding to 4 atm with catalytic effect), the time required for the mixture to
prematurely ignite prior to the combustor at these temperatures is 1,000 seconds in the non-
recuperated turbine and 0.001 seconds in the recuperated turbine. The residence time of the fuel-
air mixture through the compressor and recuperator is typically in the order of 0.1-1 seconds. So,
the mixture will not prematurely ignite in the non-recuperated turbine but could in the
recuperated turbine, if the fuel-air mixture exceeds the lower flammability limit.
To address the concerns above, Solo Energy has conducted tests in which the fuel-air mixture
from the recuperator was purposely routed through a U-shape pipe (about 10 foot long) before it
reaches the combustor to increase its residence time. No auto-ignition has been observed so far.
Another concern is the possibility of flashback from the combustor to the recuperator. It should
be noted that the fuel-air mixture in either recuperated or non-recuperated turbine case is all
below the lower flammability limit. So, the analysis above and Solo Energy’s testing is a
precaution measure. Another concern is the flashback of flame in the combustor to the
recuperator. Solo Energy has not observed this problem either so far but it needs to be addressed
by testing over a wide range of operating conditions.
5-13
10093036
1,400
1,200
Auto-Iginition Temperature, C
1,000
4 atm, no catalytic
effect
800
1 atm, no
600 catalytic effect
1 atm, with
catalytic effect
400
4 atm, with
200 catalytic effect
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Exposed Time, Seconds
Figure 5-6
Auto-Ignition Temperature of Methane
5.3.3 Ignition in the Combustor
From the discussion above, it appears that auto-ignition is not an issue for fuel-aspirated non-
recuperated microturbine. Auto ignition is an issue for the recuperated fuel aspirated
microturbine if the fuel air mixture exceeds the flammability limit, which could happen if the
turbine inlet temperature or pressure ratio is raised substantially over current levels (e.g., x psi, y
°F). This is particularly true for the simple cycle operation due to the low fuel/air mixture
temperature prior to the combustor. But the low mixture temperature may also cause difficulty
for the fuel to ignite in the combustor. A possible solution to this problem is to use a two-stage
catalytic combustion.
In the first stage, a more reactive catalyst with low light-off temperature will be used to combust
a portion of the fuel. In the second stage, a less reactive but more temperature resistant catalyst
will be used to complete the combustion and raise the temperature to the required level. The
temperature in the first stage combustion can be kept below the catalyst operating temperature
limit by controlling the amount of catalyst used and thus the amount of fuel combusted.
The active components of combustion catalysts are usually platinum and palladium. As platinum
is more reactive but also less temperature resistant, the catalyst in the first stage combustion will
typically contain mostly platinum and very little palladium. This catalyst also is purposely made
to be quite porous with higher specific surface area as to further increase the reactivity and to
provide low light-off temperature. The high temperature catalyst used in the second stage
5-14
10093036
combustion, on the other hand, has higher palladium content and is less porous with low specific
surface area. The low porosity leads to lower reactivity but can minimize the catalyst-sintering
problem at the high combustion temperature.
In the economic analysis in Chapter 5.2, the cost of combustor and combustion catalyst given is a
generalized estimate. It has not taken into account the fine details of the combustor design
discussed above. The detailed design and cost estimate is meaningful only for a given specific
turbine and it is beyond the scope of this study.
5-15
10093036
10093036
6
INTEGRATION OF MICROTURBINES AND CHILLERS
Integration of an absorption chiller with a non-recuperated microturbine can potentially be very

attractive because:
• Utilizing waste heat in the turbine exhaust gas can improve economics
• The cooling produced can be used to reduce the power demand on air conditioning when
electricity prices surge during hot days
• The cooling produced can also be used to cool the turbine inlet air to increase the turbine
output during hot days
• Packaging a combined system is less costly than two separately packaged systems, as
some system components and pre-delivery checkup could be shared
• It could leverage existing marketing, sales, installation and servicing distribution

infrastructure for air conditioning systems
This study compares the economics of the integrated system with conventional air conditioning
systems that use gas compression chillers. A case study for a large commercial building with real
time electricity pricing shows that the payback of the integrated system can be less than 4 years.
Details of the analysis are provided below, including a discussion of development opportunities
to further improve the integrated system and reduce its cost.
6.1 System Configuration
Shown in Figure 6-1 are the process arrangement and major process streams when a non-
recuperated microturbine is heat integrated with an absorption chiller. The process flows are
based on 100 F (38 C) ambient temperature with the turbine inlet air cooled to 60 F (15.6 C).
A hot water generator made of bare heat exchange tubes is placed at the turbine exhaust to
generate 250 F (121 C) hot water to drive the absorption chiller. Chilled water of 45 F (7.2 C) is
produced. A small portion of it is sent to cooling coils at the turbine intake to cool inlet air and
thereby increase the turbine output. Most of the chilled water is used to provide cooling for a
HVAC (heating-ventilation-air conditioning) system. As the chilled water is only 45 F (7.2 C),
the minimum practical temperature the turbine inlet air can be cooled to is 60 F (15.6 C). After
use, the chilled water is returned to the absorption chiller at 55 F (12.8 C).
6-1
10093036
Integration of Microturbines and Chillers

Heat in the hot water feed to the chiller and returned chilled water is rejected to a cooling tower.
Spare pumps are provided for the circulation of hot water, cooling water, and chilled water to
enhance the system reliability.
electric 2
motor fuel
compressor
natural 1
combustor
gas
high speed
generator 7
6
power cooling
conditioner 4 chill water cw tower
8
return from pump
5 HVAC
hot water
air 13 generator
Absorption
cooler hot water
Chiller 9
chill pump
3 12 10
11 water turbine
air
air chill water pump exhaust
filter to HVAC
Stream No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Stream Name Natural Compressed Air Air after Filter Air after Compressed Combustor Expander HW Gen. Total Chill Chill Water Chill Water Chill Water
Gas Feed Natural Gas Feed & Ice Cooling Generator Air Exhaust Exhaust Exhaust Water to HVAC to Air Cooler Return
CH4, vol% 93.62 93.62
C2H6, vol% 3.12 3.12
C3H8, vol% 0.96 0.96
C4H10, vol%
C5H12, vol%
CO2, vol% 0.83 0.83 2.98 2.98 2.98
N2+Ar, vol% 1.47 1.47 77.26 77.50 77.50 77.50 75.26 75.26 75.26
O2, vol% 20.67 20.73 20.73 20.73 14.29 14.29 14.29
CO, vol%
H2, vol%
H2O, vol% 2.07 1.77 1.77 1.77 7.48 7.48 7.48 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total, vol% 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Total lb/sec 0.0140 0.0140 0.7896 0.7880 0.7880 0.7880 0.8020 0.8020 0.8020 18.8803 18.3452 0.5351 18.8803
Total, kg/sec 0.0063 0.0063 0.3585 0.3578 0.3578 0.3578 0.3641 0.3641 0.0833 8.5717 8.3287 0.2429 8.5717
Total, SCFM 18.55 18.55 628.12 626.19 626.19 626.19 645.21 645.21 645.21 ----- ----- ----- -----
Total, ACFM 13.85 5.12 676.44 631.34 649.90 244.72 669.97 2,005.05 943.00 ----- ----- ----- -----
Temperature, F 60 367 100 60 74 431 1,700 1,174 300 45 45 45 55

Temperature, C 16 186 38 16 23 222 927 635 149 7 7 7 13
Pressure, psia 19.70 84.70 14.70 14.58 14.54 64.48 58.80 14.87 14.70 24.70 14.70 24.70 14.70
Pressure, atm 1.34 5.76 1.00 0.99 0.99 4.39 4.00 1.01 1.00 1.68 1.00 1.68 1.00
Figure 6-1
Integrated System of Microturbine with Absorption Chiller
6-2
10093036
6.2 Turbine Performance and Costs
without the cooling. The turbine performance with the cooling has taken into account the
additional pressure drops (0.5” water) in both the turbine inlet air and turbine exhaust gas due to
the air cooling and hot water generation. Table 6-1 shows that the inlet air cooling from 100 F
(37.8 C) to 60 F (15.6 C) can increase the turbine power output by more than 7 kW for a 50 kW
turbine rated at ISO conditions. Also shown in Table 6-1 are the capital costs and O&M costs.
With inlet air cooling, these costs are smaller per $/kW and cents/kWh because more power is
produced.
Table 6-1
Comparison of Microturbine Performance with and without Inlet Air Cooling by Chilled Water
from Absorption Chiller
Non-Recuperated Turbine
Turbine Inlet Air Cooled by Chill Water No Yes
Ambient Temperature 100 F 100 F
Turbine Inlet Air Temperature 100 F 60 F
Air Flow
SCFM 584.43 626.02
lb/s 0.73 0.79
Fuel Flow
SCFM 16.57 18.55
Installed Cost (10,000 units/y), $ 32,852 32,852
$/kW 860 722
6.3 Chiller Performance and Costs
6.3.1 Absorption Chiller
There are two types of absorption chillers: aqua-ammonia absorption and lithium bromide
absorption. Ammonia absorption chillers are capable of providing cooling down to -50 F (10 C)
6-3
10093036

and have capacities ranging from 200 to 10,000 tons (1 ton of refrigeration = 12,000 Btu/h =
3.5 kW cooling). Lithium bromide absorption chillers can provide cooling only to 40 F (4.44 C)
and have capacities ranging from 10 to 1,800 tons. Ammonia is listed as a hazardous chemical
under OSHA while lithium bromide is an inert salt solution. Small-scale applications for
distributed generationcannot justify the handling requirements of ammonia. For this reason and
also because HVAC systems do not require deep refrigeration, lithium bromide chillers were
chosen for this analysis.
Lithium bromide absorption chillers can be single-effect or double-effect types, depending on the
heat sources. If low temperature heat is available, the chillers used are usually the single-effect
type as shown in Figure 6-2. In this type of chiller, the heat medium (such as hot water) flows
through heating coils in the Generator (marked Area 5 in Figure 6-2) to evaporate water from
dilute lithium bromide solution at 1.5 psia and 215 F (101 C). The water vapor is condensed in
the Condenser (Area 6) by cooling water. The water condensed is pressure reduced to 0.13 psia
(Area 1) and vaporized (Area 2) in the Evaporator. The water expansion and vaporization creates
cooling load to transfer into the chilled water system. The water vapor is then washed and
absorbed in the Absorber (Area 3) by the concentrated lithium bromide solution from the
Generator (Area 5). The diluted lithium bromide solution resulting from the wash is recycled
back through a recycle pump (Area 4) to the Generator (Area 5) to complete the cycle.
Figure 6-2
Basic Principle of Single-Effect Lithium Bromide Absorption Chiller
If the heat source is at higher temperature, such as steam or hot flue gas from a direct-fired unit,
the chillers used are usually the double-effect type as shown in Figure 6-3. In this type of chiller,
the high temperature heat source allows the use of double-effect evaporator and condenser to
increase utilization of the heat input.
6-4
10093036
Figure 6-3
Basic Principle of Double-Effect Lithium Bromide Absorption Chiller
The single-effect chiller typically has a COP (coefficient of performance, defined as refrigeration
load produced relative to the amount of heat input) of 0.7 while the double-effect unit has a COP
of 1.0. As the waste heat in the microturbine exhaust gas is of high temperature (1,174 F (634 C)
from Stream 8 in Figure 6-1), it is possible to produce steam to feed into a double-effect chiller.
However, steam production is complex and, more importantly, may require operator attendance.
Due to these reasons, the single-effect chiller based on the use of hot water was chosen for this
study.
Shown in Table 6-2 is the performance of a single-effect lithium bromide chiller fired by the
turbine waste heat. Two cases, corresponding to the uses of 1 and 10 units of the 50 kW turbine
discussed in Section 6.2 above, are given. All the flows, refrigeration loads, and power generated
and consumed for the 10-turbine case are simply 10 times the 1-turbine case. As discussed
below, absorption chillers have significant economy of scale. The 1-turbine case would be too
small to be economical. The 10-turbine case is used later for the case study in Section 6.4.
Table 6-2 shows that the auxiliary power consumption for the chiller, cooling tower, and hot
water generator units could amount to one third of the turbine power production. It also shows
that less than 3% of the total cooling load produced by the chiller is used for the turbine inlet air-
cooling. If the chiller is sized just to meet the turbine inlet air-cooling, then only a very small
fraction of the turbine waste heat will be used and the chiller size will be very expensive due to
the loss of the economy of scale. Due to these reasons, this type of heat integration was not
further pursued. The cooling water consumption shown in Table 6-2 is used mainly to make up
the cooling tower losses.
6-5
10093036

Table 6-2
Performance of Integrated system of Microturbine and Absorption Chiller
Number of Microturbines 1 10
Power Consumption/Generation, kW
Power produced from turbines 45.48 454.80
Power to operate absorption chiller 4.26 42.59
Power to circulate hot water 0.53 5.32
Power to circulate CW 7.45 74.53
Power to circulate chill water 2.66 26.62
Net Power Produced 30.57 305.75
Refrigeration Capacity, tons
Total from absorption chiller 80.9 809
Required for turbine inlet air cooling 2.3 23
Net Available for HVAC 78.6 786
Natural Gas Consumption, million Btu/h 1.141 11.4
Water Consumption, gpm 3.30 33.01
Shown in Figure 6-4 (upper curve) is the installed cost of lithium bromide absorption chillers. It
includes the costs of the cooling tower, hot water generator, hot water pumps, cooling water
pumps, and chilled water pumps. The chiller cost is based on vendors’ quotes (Carrier, York,
Trane, and Yazaki) and other component costs are based on in-house data on those components.
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600
Chiller Cost, $/ton
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
absorption chiller
600
400
vapor compression chiller
200
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700
Chiller Capacity, tons
Figure 6-4
Installed Costs of Chillers as Function of Capacity
6-6
10093036
6.3.2 Vapor Compression Chiller

The vapor compression chiller is widely used for HVAC systems, including those for homes. It
is driven by electric power but has very high COP (cooling energy out/electric energy in). The
COP varies somewhat, depending on the manufacturers and available cooling water temperature.
For simplification of analysis, the COP is assumed to be a constant value of 7. The installed cost
is show in Figure 6-4 (lower curve) as a function of capacity. It includes the cooling tower and
cooling water pumps required to support the chiller. The cost is lower than that of the absorption
chiller. The difference becomes larger as the capacity becomes smaller. This means that the
absorption chiller is less competitive with a vapor compression chiller at smaller sizes.
6.4 Case Study
To analyze the integrated use of a microturbine and absorption chiller, a case study based on the
cooling load requirement of a large office building in the southern US was conducted. Figure 6-5
shows the peak electric load during summer weekdays for this building and the maximum
HVAC (cooling) related electric load, which can be as half the total maximum electric load.
2,000
1,800 Non HVAC

HVAC
1,600 Total Elec
Peak Electric Load, kW
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of the Day
Figure 6-5
Peak Electric Load Profile of a Large Office Building in Southern US
6-7
10093036
Shown in Figure 6-6 are the hours that the air conditioning unit would be on line and the tons of
refrigeration required as a function of ambient temperature for this building. It shows that the
cooling load required is essentially proportional to the ambient temperature.
1,400
Hours in a Year
Hours in a Year or Tons of Refrigeration for Air Conditioning
Tons of Refrigeration for Air Conditioning

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59
Figure 6-6
Air Conditioning Load and On-Line Time as a Function of Ambient Temperature for a Large
Office Building in Southern US
The building is assumed to follow the real time pricing as shown in Figure 6-7. Based on this
pricing schedule, the cost of electricity in a typical summer weekday could look like that in
Figure 6-8. From the pricing schedule and the air conditioning load demand, it makes economic
sense to have a hybrid system made of two 786-ton chiller units: one based on the integrated unit
of microturbine and absorption chiller as shown by the “10 turbine” case in Table 6-1, and one
based on conventional vapor compression chiller. When the ambient temperature is high, both
units would be on-line. The power generated from the integrated unit will be used to drive the
gas compression unit. When the ambient temperature is low, the air conditioning load is low and
the electricity price is also low. Under this condition, only the vapor compression unit will be on
line. This will be compared to a reference case, in which two 786-ton vapor compression units
provide the air conditioning load.
6-8
10093036
0.50
0.45
0.40
Cost of Electricity, $/kWh 0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59
Figure 6-7
Example Real Time Pricing as a Function of Ambient Temperature
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
Electricity Cost, $/kWh
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of the Day
Figure 6-8
Cost of Electricity in an Example Summer Day
Shown in Table 6-3 are the installation and O&M costs of the two chiller systems. The installed
costs of the chillers are taken from Figure 6-4 based on the capacity required. The installed cost
of microturbines is taken from Table 6-1.
6-9
10093036

Table 6-3
Installed Costs and O&M Costs of Conventional HVAC System (Two Vapor Compression
Chillers) and Hybrid System (1 Integrated Unit of Microturbine/Absorption Chiller, 1 Vapor
Compression Chiller)
HVAC System Conventional Hybrid

Installed Cost, $
Integrated MTG/Absorption Chiller
Microturbines 328,516
Absorption chiller 586,639
Saving due to common packaging (45,758)
Saving due to share of sales/services (91,516)
Total Integrated System 777,882
Gas Compression Chiller 795,660 397,830
Total 795,660 1,175,712
O&M Costs, cents/ton-h
Absorption chiller -- 0.1236
Gas compression chiller 0.0715 0.0715
The feasibility of a common packaging for the integrated microturbine and absorption chiller
unit was explored with several packaging companies. An initial arrangement of the common
package is shown in Figure 6-9. It shows that the total package is about 22 ft long, 12 ft wide,
with a maximum height of 12 ft and a total weight of 30 tons. Current shipping limits in US
without special permits are 12 ft width, 13.5’ height, and 50 tons weight. The package shown in
Figure 6-9 is within these limits and thus it is feasible to have a common packaging for the
integrated unit.
absorption chiller (750 -800 tons of refrigeration)

22' long, 7' wide, 12' high
20 tons
10 microturbines,
each: 50 kW
4.5' long, 2' wide, 6' high
1 ton
Figure 6-9
Layout of the Common Package of Microturbines and Absorption Chiller
6-10
10093036
The packaging companies estimated that the saving from using a common packaging, such as
sharing structure frame, enclosure, control system, and pre-delivery shop testing, could amount
to 5% of the total cost. The saving from using existing marketing, sales, and services
infrastructure of air conditioning units and a combined installation instead of two separate
installations could amount to additional 10% of the total cost. These potential savings are
included for the hybrid case in Table 6-3. The O&M costs for both types of chillers were
estimated by assuming that the maintenance cost is 1% of the installed cost and the cost of water
(mainly for cooling tower makeup) is $2/1,000 gallons.
Shown in Table 6-4 is a comparison of annual costs (excluding capital recovery) of the hybrid
HVAC system with the conventional HVAC system.
Table 6-4
Comparison of Annual Costs (Excluding Capital Recovery) Between Hybrid and Conventional
HVAC Systems
Hybrid HVAC System: one 786-ton absorption chiller unit and one 786-ton vapor compression chiller unit
Electri- HVAC Load, tons Natural Power Production/Consumption Natural Electri- Total
Hours city by by Vap. Gas Power Power Net Power Gas city O&M Annual
Ambient per Price Total Absorp. Comp. Required Produced Consumed Purchased Cost Cost Cost Cost*
Temp Year $/kWh Need Chiller Chiller 10^6 Btu/h kW kW kW $ $ $ $
95-99 20 0.45 1,200 786 414 11.41 305.75 206.9 (98.8) 913 (890) 128 151
90-94 84 0.40 1,113 786 327 11.41 305.75 163.4 (142.3) 3,833 (4,783) 532 (418)
85-89 216 0.35 1,031 786 244 11.41 305.75 122.2 (183.6) 9,855 (13,880) 1,356 (2,669)
80-84 393 0.15 948 786 162 11.41 305.75 80.9 (224.8) 17,931 (13,255) 2,444 7,120
75-79 585 0.10 866 786 79 11.41 305.75 39.6 (266.1) 26,691 (15,567) 3,603 14,728
70-74 775 0.03 783 783 391.5 391.5 9,102 434 9,536
65-69 784 0.03 701 701 350.3 350.3 8,238 393 8,630
60-64 706 0.03 618 618 309.0 309.0 6,545 312 6,856
55-59 670 0.03 536 536 267.8 267.8 5,382 256 5,638
Total 4,233 59,223 (19,107) 9,457 49,573
Conventional HVAC System: two 786-ton vapor compression chiller units

Electri- HVAC Load, tons Natural Power Production/Consumption Natural Electri- Total
Hours city by by Vap Gas Power Power Net Power Gas city O&M Annual
Ambient per Price Total Absorp. Comp. Required Produced Consumed Purchased Cost Cost Cost Cost*
Temp Year $/kWh Need Chiller Chiller 10^6 Btu/h kW kW kW $ $ $ $
95-99 20 0.45 1,200 1,200 600.0 600.0 5,400 17 5,417
90-94 84 0.40 1,113 1,113 556.5 556.5 18,698 67 18,765
85-89 216 0.35 1,031 1,031 515.3 515.3 38,953 159 39,112
80-84 393 0.15 948 948 474.0 474.0 27,942 266 28,209
75-79 585 0.10 866 866 432.8 432.8 25,316 362 25,678
70-74 775 0.03 783 783 391.5 391.5 9,102 434 9,536
65-69 784 0.03 701 701 350.3 350.3 8,238 393 8,630
60-64 706 0.03 618 618 309.0 309.0 6,545 312 6,856
55-59 670 0.03 536 536 267.8 267.8 5,382 256 5,638
Total 4,233 145,576 2,266 147,842
* Without Capital Recovery
In the hybrid case, the integrated microturbine/absorption chiller unit is operational in full
capacity when the ambient temperature is above 75 F (23.9 C). The gas compression chiller
provides the balance of the HVAC load. Power produced from the integrated unit is more than
that required for the gas compression unit. So, there is surplus of power to cut down the amount
of power purchased by the building. When the ambient temperature is below 75F (23.9 C), the
6-11
10093036

air conditioning load is small enough to be provided totally by the gas compression unit. At that
time, the electricity cost also becomes low and thus it is economical to use the gas compression
unit to provide the entire air conditioning load.
Table 6-4 shows that there are cost savings of close to $100,000/y for using the hybrid system.
When the saving is compared with the additional capital cost required by the hybrid system, the
payback on this additional capital investment is 3.9 years as shown in Table 6-5. The payback
period could be even shorter if the real time pricing has a larger cost disparity between the low
and high priced periods (corresponding to low and high ambient temperatures) than shown in
Figure 6-7.
Table 6-5
Payback Analysis of Using the Hybrid HVAC System
HVAC System Conventional Hybrid Difference

Capital Cost, $ 795,660 1,175,712 380,052
Annual Cost (w/o capital recovery), $/y
Natural Gas -- 59,223 59,223
Electricity 145,576 (19,107) (164,683)
O&M 2,266 9,457 7,191
Total 147,842 49,573 (98,269)
Payback Years 3.9
Overall, it can be concluded that the integrated unit of microturbines and absorption chillers have
economic potential for capturing the HVAC market.
6.5 Development Opportunities
In the analysis above, hot water is generated from the turbine waste heat to drive a single-effect
absorption chiller. A possible improvement over this arrangement is to collect hot flue gases
from all the turbines to directly drive the chiller. As the turbine flue gases are very hot, double-
effect chillers can be used to improve the thermal efficiency. As mentioned earlier, double-effect
chillers have higher COP than single-effect chillers (1.0 vs. 0.7). So, for the same waste heat, the
chiller can produce 43% (1/0.7 = 1.43) more cooling load. This will significantly reduce the
chiller cost on $/ton basis.
However, manifolding of the turbine hot flue gases for feeding to the chiller requires high
temperature ducts. Development opportunities exist for the packaging companies to work with
both the turbine and chiller manufacturers so that the ducting can be minimized to capture the
full benefit of the integrated unit.
6-12
10093036
7
MISCELLANEOUS MICROTURBINE IMPROVEMENTS
In a previous EPRI study on microturbine performance and cost1, increasing the turbine firing
temperature was identified as the most effective method to improve the turbine efficiency. As
microturbines are very small in size, it is not practical to raise the firing temperature by using
film cooling for the turbine nozzles and blades2,3. Due to this reason, many microturbine
manufacturers are exploring the use of ceramic components to raise the firing temperature.
So far, most of ceramic turbine knowledge is from turbine development other than
microturbines. A status survey of the development indicates that ceramic turbines have made
significant progress in recent years but still cannot demonstrate the endurance level required for
commercialization. There are also several practical issues related to applying this technology to
microturbines. Details of the survey and analysis are described in this chapter.
Also explored in this chapter is the possibility of using catalytic combustion to reduce
microturbine emissions. A status survey of this technology indicates that catalytic combustion
has already found commercial use in one small gas turbine. A cost analysis shows that if the
catalyst cost can be reduced and the life extended, catalytic combustion can be an effective
alternative to SCR for microturbines to meet future stringent emission requirements.
7.1 Ceramic Turbines
7.1.1 Development Status
Ceramic turbine development has made significant progress in the past 10 years. Advanced
ceramic materials, mainly silicon nitride and silicon carbide, have been developed to better
withstand oxidation, mechanical stress, and thermal stress in the turbine service environment.
For applicationsthat require low temperature (< 1150 C or 2,100 F), low pressure, and low gas
velocity operation, such as aircraft auxiliary power units (APUs), these materials can meet the
service requirement. However, for high temperature, high pressure, high gas velocity, and high
water content applications, volatilization of the protective silica layer on the ceramic components
1
EPRI Report TR-114182, Assessment of Microturbines as Distributed Generators, December
1999.
2
J.H. Watts, “Increasing Microturbine Efficiency”, Paper Presented in 1998 Power-Gen
International Conference
3
Private communication with Honeywell
7-1
10093036
Miscellaneous Microturbine Improvements

and consequent accelerated oxidation is still a technical issue. Protective coatings are being
developed to overcome this problem.
In recent years, various processes to fabricate complex-shaped ceramic turbine components with
high reproducibility and at acceptable cost have also been developed. The major focus has been
to produce these components with near-net-shape to minimize subsequent machining and
polishing. Ceramic components fabricated thus far include whole combustors, combustor linings,
turbine blades, turbine wheels, and turbine nozzles.
Currently the more publicized ceramic turbine development projects are:
• Kawasaki’s 300 kW CGT turbine1, 2 under the Japanese Ceramic Gas Turbine Program
• Solar’s 4.5 MW Centaur 50S gas turbine3 under DOE’s Ceramic Stationary Gas Turbine
Program
• Honeywell’s 100 kW 331-200[CT] APU4 under DOE’s Ceramic Turbine Engine

Demonstration Program (previously called Advanced Turbine Technology Application
Project)
Many other turbine manufactures, such as GE, Siemens/Westinhouse, and Rolls Royce/Allison,
also have ceramic component development programs.
The Kawasaki CGT302 turbine is a recuperated, two-spool, high-speed (60,000 rpm) engine with
a compression ratio of 8 and a turbine inlet temperature of 1,350 C (2,462 F). Ceramics are used
in the hot path from combustor to the first stage turbine. The turbine has a thermal efficiency of
42%. More than 2,000 hours of operation have been accumulated at 1,200 C (2,192 F) operating
temperature and 20 hours at 1,350 C (2,462 F) operating temperature. However, only the ceramic
combustor survived a 1,000-hour endurance test. The ceramic turbine rotor was broken into
pieces after 600-800 hours in several endurance tests.
The Solar Centaur 50S turbine is a low speed commercial turbine of all metal construction with a
turbine inlet temperature of 1,010 C (1,850 F). When modified to incorporate ceramic
components for the combustor and first stage turbine, the turbine inlet temperature is raised to
1,121 C (2,050 F). Field tests at the raised temperature were just initiated this year. One issue
encountered in the shop tests is the ability of the ceramic turbine blades to survive the impact of
foreign objects, such as carbon particles produced from the combustor. This problem was also
encountered by other developers but was a more serious issue for the Solar turbine because the
1
I. Takehara, T. Tatsumi, and Y. Ichikawa, “Summary of CGT302 Ceramic Gas Turbine
Research and Development Program”, ASME 2000-GT-644
2
K. Tanaka, M. Yoshida, T. Kubo, H. Terazono, and S. Tsuruzono, “Development and
Evaluation of Ceramic Components for Small Gas Turbine Engine”, ASME 2000-GT-531
3
J. Price, O. Jimenez, and V. Parthasarathy, “Ceramic Stationary Gas Turbine Development
Program - Seventh Annual Summary”, ASME 2000-GT-75
4
B. Schenk, “Ceramic Turbine Engine Demonstration Project - A Summary Report”, ASME
2000-GT-532
7-2
10093036

turbine is relatively large and the turbine blades are longer. This problem has been partially
resolved by modifying the blade shape and reducing the number of blades.
The Honeywell 331-200[CT] APU is a high-speed (40,000 rpm) engine with a compression ratio
of 8 and a turbine inlet temperature of 982 C (1,800 F). Due to the modest temperature used, the
development was more successful. Field tests of units using ceramic turbine nozzles have been
initiated for commercial aircraft services and these field tests will progress into units
incorporating other ceramic components in the next 1-2 years.
A major challenge in the application of ceramic components is how to attach them into the
turbine metal base frame. Ceramics are very brittle and have very different thermal expansion
coefficients than metals. These characteristics make it difficult to attach ceramic parts with metal
bolts as differential expansion creates thermal stress between the ceramic and metal parts. The
difference in thermal expansion coefficients also prevents tight fits between these parts, which
can result in gas leakage and turbine inefficiency. Kawasaki has resolved this issue by using
ceramic springs to push the ceramic parts, such as the turbine scroll, against the metal frame.
Solar and Honeywell have resolved this issue by using compliant layers between the ceramic
parts and metal base frame.
Ceramics are prone to cracking. One solution used by most of the developers is to have the
ceramic components segmented into small pieces and then bonded together by wrapping with
ceramic fibers.
In summary, the ceramic turbine development have resolved many technical barriers in recent
years but the technology still cannot demonstrate the required durability for commercialization,
particularly for services requiring more extreme operating conditions.
7.1.2 Applicability for Microturbines
When the turbine firing temperature increases due to the use of ceramic components, the turbine
exhaust temperature also increases. In the Kawasaki CGT302 ceramic turbine, a ceramic
recuperator, costing more than $1 million, was required.
To avoid having to use a ceramic recuperator, the turbine compression ratio has to be high. This,
in turn, leads to multi-stage compression and expansion. This increases the turbine complexity
and necessitates a larger fuel compressor and correspondingly higher parasitic power. At higher
pressure, the turbine wheel, which is already quite small, will become even smaller. Gas slippage
through the small turbine wheel tip clearances might be excessive and create unacceptable
efficiency losses. In conclusion, the use of ceramic components to increase the firing temperature
probably can only be justified for larger microturbines.
7-3
10093036
7.2 Catalytic Combustion
7.2.1 Development Status
Combustion catalysts for gas turbine applications are still under development. There are many
combustion catalyst developers, such as Catalytica, Precision Combustion, Engelhard, and
Johnson Matthey. The more active ones are Catalytica and Precision Combustion. Catalytica has
been supplying combustion catalysts to several gas turbine suppliers, such as GE, Solar, Rolls
Royce/Allison, and Kawasaki for testing. Precision Combustion has also been supplying
combustion catalysts to several gas turbine suppliers, such as Siemens/Westinghouse, Solar, and
Honeywell for testing. So far, only Catalytica has reached the point of initial commercial offer.
This offer was made through a 1.5 MW Kawasaki gas turbine.
7.2.2 Technical Issues
The biggest technical challenge of combustion catalysts is the catalyst sintering and loss of
reactivity at high combustion temperature. The sintering can occur to either the active
components (platinum and palladium) or the substrate. Catalytica overcomes this issue by
adopting a two-stage combustion process. In the first stage, the fuel and air are partially
combusted over the catalyst at a temperature of no more than 1,800 F (982 C). In the second
stage, the combustion is completed non-catalytically to reach the turbine operating temperature.
Because the fuel and air are already thoroughly mixed in the first stage, the fuel burn-out in the
second stage produces minimal NOx.
The catalyst used by Catalytica in the first stage, called Xonon, is specially formulated to
automatically lose its reactivity when the combustion temperature exceeds 1,800 F (982 C). This
self-limiting capability prevents the combustion temperature from exceeding 1,800 F (982 C)
and thus minimizes the sintering potential of the catalyst. Other combustion catalyst developers
do not use this approach. They rely on structural improvements to the catalyst to increase its
temperature tolerance.
Combustion catalysts usually have a monolithic structure with ceramic substrates. Recently,
metallic substrates have been developed. For example, Catalytica uses a corrugated metal
substrate. The metal substrates are more expensive to make but are quicker to heat up and have
less sintering potential. Even with the low operating temperature and use of metallic substrate,
Catalytica still can achieve only one year life for its catalyst.
7.2.3 Combustor Design
Combustion catalysts typically have to be preheated (400-800 F) (204-427 C) before they are
reactive enough to function. The fuel and air also need to be thoroughly mixed for the catalytic
combustion to occur properly. Typically there is a preburner and a gas mixer placed upstream of
the combustion catalyst as part of the combustor package. The mixer can be of various designs,
such as a diffuser or swirl type. In the Catalytica system, the combustor also includes a burnout
zone downstream of the catalyst.
7-4
10093036

The preburner is used to preheat the combustion catalyst and also to generate hot gas to run the
turbine during the turbine startup. In the combustor design for the 1.5 MW Kawasaki turbine,
Catalytica divided the preburner into a primary section and a secondary section. The primary
section continues to fire and preheat the air during normal turbine operation. As fuel is totally
mixed with air in the catalytic combustion, the resulting lean mixture is at risk of flame blowout.
The continuous firing of preburner primary section during the normal operation allows a control
of the combustion temperature to prevent the blowout. Due to this continuous firing, the NOx
emissions measured in the demonstration unit at Silicon Valley Power (Santa Clara, California)
were in the range of 1-2 ppmv. Other developers, who do not use a preburner during normal
operation, have measured NOx emissions in the 0.1-0.3 ppmv range.
7.2.4 Economic Comparison with SCR
Shown in Table 7-1 is a comparison of catalytic combustion with SCR (Selective Catalytic
Reduction) for the 50 kW recuperated microturbine specified in Figure 2-1 and Table 2-3. The
NOx reduction is based on 9 ppmv (current emission from microturbines without NOx control)
to 2 ppmv (achievable level measured from the use of Catalytica’s Xonon combustion catalyst).
Table 7-1
Performance and Cost Comparison Between Catalytic Combustion and SCR
Catalytic
Combustion SCR
NOx removal (9 ppmv reduced to 2 ppmv), lb/h 0.039 0.039
Power consumption, kWh 0 0.004
Ammonia consumption, lb/h 0 0.015
Additional space required 0 20"x20"x20"
Capital cost (mainly initial catalyst cost), $ 1,500 2,000
Catalyst life, year 1 5
Annual cost (90% on-stream, 3 year payback), $/y
Capital recovery 500 667
Catalyst Replacement 1,500 400
Ammonia cost ($326/ton) 0 19
Power Cost (10 cents/kWh) 0 3
Total 2,000 1,089
Annual cost (90% on-stream, 7 year payback), $/y
Capital recovery 214 286
Catalyst Replacement 1,500 400
Ammonia cost ($326/ton) 0 19
Power Cost (10 cents/kWh) 0 3
Total 1,714 708
Current medium temperature SCR catalysts operate in the 500-750 F (260-399 C) range. The
turbine exhaust temperature after the recuperator, as shown in Figure 2-1, is 552 F (289 C).
Hence, the SCR catalyst can be placed in the exhaust duct of the recuperator.
7-5
10093036

For the capital cost estimate, the cost is mainly the initial installation of the catalyst. SCR
requires ammonia storage but for the size of the turbine analyzed here, the storage would be just
a small bottle and the cost can be neglected. For the combustion catalyst, the cost is based on
Catalytica’s current commercial offering of its Xonon catalyst for the Kawasaki 1.5 MW turbine,
which is $45,000, or $30/kW. The SCR catalyst cost was obtained from catalyst suppliers.
Table 7-1 shows that the combustion catalyst is actually cheaper than SCR catalyst. But as the
combustion catalyst has only a one year life as opposed to the 5 year life for the SCR catalyst,
the combustion catalyst is less economical than the SCR catalyst. For catalytic combustion to
compete with SCR, the catalyst life will need to be extended and the cost reduced.
7-6
10093036
10093036
SHRINK-WRAP LICENSE AGREEMENT
About EPRI THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU (LICENSEE) AND EPRIsolutions, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION (EPRIsolutions) PERTAINING TO THE MATERIALS THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS LICENSE
EPRI creates science and technology AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS
solutions for the global energy and For the purpose of this shrink-wrap license agreement ("Agreement") the following definitions shall apply and shall control over any inconsistent definitions
of the same term used in any other contract or agreement associated to this Agreement.
energy services industry. U.S. electric Materials: Means the document(s) and/or computer software accompanying this Agreement which is hereby designated by EPRIsolutions to be
Proprietary Information as defined below.
utilities established the Electric Power
Target: Means an area of research work that created the Materials.
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit Participant: Means an entity that funded the Target, or an entity related to the Participant, or the Participant's parent company, in which the Participant or
its parent, owns a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest and which the Participant has designated as being funder of the Target that created the Materials.
research consortium for the benefit of Proprietary Information: Means the Materials and any and all information or materials (including but not limited to scientific, technical, and business
information, materials, concepts and information) disclosed in which the disclosing party has notified the receiving party is confidential, trade secret or
utility members, their customers, and proprietary.
Internal Use License: Means LICENSEE's use (or use by a consultant acting for LICENSEE) of the Materials for LICENSEE's own business operations.
society. Now known simply as EPRI, the Commercial Use License: Means a license for use of the Materials by LICENSEE for performing Consulting Services for LICENSEE's clients. This does
not include the right to sublicense the Materials or any portion thereof, or to copy and distribute the Materials in violation of the copyright protections
company provides a wide range of pertaining to said Materials.
LICENSEE: Means an entity that accepts the Materials accompanying this Agreement under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
innovative products and services to more 2. LICENSE CLASS AND SUBORDINATION OF AGREEMENT
than 1000 energy-related organizations The License Class for this Agreement and the Materials as specified above is in reference to the License Classes contained in the terms and conditions
of the Target Funding Agreement entered between EPRIsolutions and the Participant, which is herein incorporated by reference if applicable.
in 40 countries. EPRI’s multidisciplinary Furthermore, this Agreement shall be subordinate to the terms of any Target Funding Agreement or any other agreement entered between LICENSEE
and EPRIsolutions that applies to the Materials.
team of scientists and engineers draws 3. GRANT OF LICENSE
Accordingly having defined the License Class above, EPRIsolutions hereby grants to LICENSEE a nonexclusive, worldwide, nontransferable, perpetual,
on a worldwide network of technical and "for cause" revocable, Internal Use and Commercial Use License to the Materials accompanying this Agreement. LICENSEE hereby agrees that
EPRIsolutions reserves its right to terminate this Agreement immediately on a "for cause" basis if LICENSEE fails to comply with any lawful material
business expertise to help solve today’s provision of this Agreement.
4. COPYRIGHT
toughest energy and environmental LICENSEE hereby acknowledges that the Materials accompanying this Agreement is owned by EPRIsolutions, is Proprietary Information, and is
protected by United States and international copyright laws. Unless stated elsewhere in this Agreement, LICENSEE may not, without the prior written
problems. permission of EPRIsolutions, reproduce, this material, in any form, in whole or in part.
5. RESTRICTIONS
EPRI. Electrify the World LICENSEE may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give the Materials to any person or organization, or use the information contained in the Materials for
any purpose other than as specified above, unless such use is granted via written permission from EPRIsolutions. LICENSEE agrees to take all
About EPRIsolutions reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of the Materials and any and all Proprietary Information contained therein. Except as specified
above, this Agreement does not grant LICENSEE any other intellectual property rights or licenses in respect of the Materials.
6. TERM AND TERMINATION
EPRIsolutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of This Agreement is effective until the termination of EPRIsolutions's rights in the Materials, or earlier on a "for cause" basis. LICENSEE may terminate the
rights granted herein at any time by destroying the Materials contained herein. Upon any termination, LICENSEE may destroy the Materials contained
EPRI, provides R&D, technology applications herein, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
services, consulting services, field test 7. LIMITATION OF WARRANTIES AND LIABILITIES
EPRIsolutions warrants that it has the right to grant the licenses and rights granted in this Agreement. However, EPRIsolutions assumes no responsibility
evaluations, and privately-sponsored initiatives for abating any infringement of its copyright or other proprietary rights in the Materials. Any action taken by EPRIsolutions with respect to any such
infringement shall be at EPRIsolutions 's sole discretion.
to the power industry. Its areas of focus include EPRIsolutions does not warrant the noninfringement by the Materials of any other copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property
right, domestic or foreign.
power generation, transmission and NEITHER EPRIsolutions, NOR ANY PARTICIPANT THAT FUNDED THE TARGET, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON
BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
distribution, end use technologies, market (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT OF ANY MATERIALS OR FREEDOM FROM
assessment and communications, facility CONTAMINATION BY COMPUTER VIRUSES, OF THE MATERIALS; OR
(B) ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO ANY USE OF THE MATERIALS OR ANY PORTION THEREOF OR WITH
maintenance programs, operator training, and RESPECT TO ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHICH MAY RESULT FROM SUCH USE.
LICENSEE agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Materials, including United
online monitoring systems. EPRIsolutions States export control laws. The aforesaid obligations shall survive any satisfaction, expiration, termination or discharge of this Agreement or any
obligations hereunder.
offers a wide range of technical support to EXCEPT AS PROVIDED OTHERWISE HEREIN, EPRISOLUTIONS PROVIDES NO INDEMNIFICATION TO LICENSEE.
expand and enhance EPRI's overall science 8. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY
For an amount up to the amount of funding the Participant contributed to the Target which created the Materials, EPRIsolutions shall indemnify, save
and technology program. harmless and defend the Participant against all claims of liability for infringement of a third party's United States copyright or unlawful acquisition of a third
party's United States trade secrets which arises from the Participant's use of Materials in accordance with this Agreement, except to the extent that such
claims are a result of the alteration of the Materials or violation of this Agreement by Participant. Participant hereby agrees to indemnify, save harmless
and defend EPRIsolutions against all other claims of liability arising from use of the Materials by Participant. In either event, indemnitee agrees to notify
indemnitor promptly and in writing of any claims subject to indemnification, and indemnification shall cover reasonable expenses, attorney fees, costs and
damages.
© 2000 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved. EPRI
In no event shall either EPRIsolutions or Participant be liable to the other for any incidental, indirect, special, or consequential damages, however caused
is a registered service mark of the Electric Power and on any theory of liability, arising out of or related to the performance of this Agreement.
Research Institute, Inc. 9. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of the Materials, and LICENSEE agrees not to export or re-
export the Materials or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States approvals.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States 10. CHOICE OF LAW
of America This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applies to transactions taking place entirely in California between California
residents.
1000770 11. INTEGRATION
LICENSEE has read and understood this Agreement, and acknowledges that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between LICENSEE and
EPRIsolutions concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different terms of this
Agreement will be enforceable against EPRIsolutions unless EPRIsolutions gives its signed, written consent.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT:
BY ACCEPTING THE MATERIALS PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, LICENSEE AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF LICENSEE DOES NOT AGREE
TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT LICENSEE AGREES TO STOP ANY AND ALL USE OF SAID MATERIALS AND TO RETURN THE MATERIALS TO EPRISOLUTIONS
IMMEDIATELY.
EPRIsolutions • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10414, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
10093036

Micro Turbines - Innovative Concepts PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Micro Turbines - Innovative Concepts PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

WARNING:

Please read the License Agreement

Microturbines: Assessment of Innovative Cycles and

A Product of EPRIsolutions, Inc.

Technical Progress, December 2000

EPRIsolutions Project Manager

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

This is an EPRIsolutions Level 2 report. A Level 2 report is intended as an informal report of

EPRIsolutions is a registered service mark of EPRIsolutions, Inc.

Copyright © 2000 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved

This report was prepared by

This report describes research sponsored by EPRIsolutions.

Microturbines: Assessment of Innovative Cycles and Advanced Concepts, EPRIsolutions,

EPRI Solutions Perspectives

This report is a sequel to TR-114182, “Assessment of Microturbines as Distributed Generators,”

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1-1

2 MICROTURBINE FOR PEAK SHAVING............................................................................. 2-1

Comparison of Capacity De-rating ...........................................................................2-24

3 HYBRID USE OF MICROTURBINE AND PEM FUEL CELLS............................................. 3-1

4 MICROTURBINE--BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE HYBRID FOR UPS AND GRID-

5 FUEL-ASPIRATED MICROTURBINE ................................................................................. 5-1

6 INTEGRATION OF MICROTURBINES AND CHILLERS .................................................... 6-1

7 MISCELLANEOUS MICROTURBINE IMPROVEMENTS .................................................... 7-1

Figure 2-1 Recuperated Microturbine (Process Flows Given under

Figure 2-2 Non-Recuperated Microturbine (Process Flows Given under

Figure 2-3 Thermal Efficiency and Heat Rat of Non-Recuperated Microturbine as

Figure 2-4 Capital Cost (Installed) and O&M Cost of Non-Recuperated

Figure 2-6 Example Icemakers from Morris ................................................................... 2-13

Figure 2-7 Icebox Capital Costs..................................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2-8 Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 7 Year Payback and

Figure 2-9 Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 3 Year Payback and

Figure 2-10 Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 7 Year Payback and

Figure 2-11 Annual Breakeven Demand Charge at 3 Year Payback and

Figure 2-14 Comparison of the costs Between Icebox and Purchase of

Figure 2-16 Cost Effectiveness of Evaporative Cooler as a Function of

Figure 3-1 Process Configuration and Major Process Streams of PEM

Figure 3-3 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Figure 3-4 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Figure 3-5 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Figure 3-6 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Figure 3-7 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Figure 3-8 Cost of Electricity as Function of Load Factor of Load Following

Figure 4-1 Lead-Acid Battery Capacity (VRLA Type) as Function of

Figure 4-3 Installed Battery System Cost as Function of Required

Figure 4-4 Installed Battery System Cost as Function of Required

Figure 4-5 Installed Cost of Battery & Its Housing as Function of

Figure 4-6 Battery Replacement Cost as Function of Required

Figure 4-7 Battery Replacement Cost as Function of Required

Figure 5-1 Recuperated Microturbine with Fuel Compression........................................ 5-2

Figure 5-2 Recuperated Microturbine without Fuel Compression

Figure 5-3 Non-Recuperated Microturbine with Fuel Compression ................................ 5-4

Figure 5-4 Non-Recuperated Microturbine without Fuel Compression

Figure 5-5 Costs of Electricity for Regular and Fuel-Aspirated Micro-

Figure 5-6 Auto-Ignition Temperature of Methane ......................................................... 5-14

Figure 6-2 Basic Principle of Single-Effect Lithium Bromide Absorption

Figure 6-3 Basic Principle of Double-Effect Lithium Bromide Absorption

Figure 6-4 Installed Costs of Chillers as Function of Capacity ....................................... 6-6

Figure 6-5 Peak Electric Load Profile of a Large Office Building in

Figure 6-6 Air Conditioning Load and On-Line Time as a Function of

Figure 6-8 Cost of Electricity in an Example Summer Day............................................. 6-9

Figure 6-9 Layout of the Common Package of Microturbines and