Combined Heat

and Power Application of a

75-kW Microturbine
Toronto Laboratory:
Monitoring Results

at a

Brian Boyd
Technology Directorate of PWGSC

2001

Outline of presentation
Project Description
Equipment
Funding Partners
Site Description
Reason for Doing the Project
Project Chronology
Summary Figures
Conclusions

75 kW Microturbine CHP Application

Project Description
2301 Midland Avenue, Scarborough has the first
Canadian installation of a micro-turbine supplying
electricity and waste heat to a building. The gasfired unit was intended to operate continuously,
providing 75 kW electric and 155 kW thermal heat.
Natural gas consumption by the buildings boilers
has been reduced by the application of recovered
heat to space heating systems in winter and humidity
control systems in summer.

Project Description
2301
Midland
Avenue,
Scarborough

Equipment

Parallon 75

Honeywell International Inc.

Parallon75

Parallon 75

Honeywell International Inc.

Equipment
Parallon 75
Honeywell Power Systems
Canadian Distributor:
Mercury Electric Calgary, AB
Features:
75-kW gas-fired microturbine
No gearbox
A recuperator
Low NOx emissions in exhaust
Local support was provided by the local Honeywell group.

Equipment
MicoGen
Heat Recovery System
Unifin International, London, ON
This Canadian designed and fabricated heat recovery system
increases the systems overall efficiency by recovering the heat
in the turbines exhaust and using it to heat hot water for space
heating in the winter and humidity control in the summer. The
heat supplied reduces the natural gas used in the buildings
boilers.

Equipment
The MicoGen combined heat & power system reduces
the need for design engineering, leaving only
application and installation considerations. The heat
supplied reduces the natural gas used in the building's
boilers.
Further information on the equipment is available at
the Unifin web site.
http://www.unifin.com/micogen.htm

Output During Operation:

The building computer recorded the
net outputs while various other
parameters were logged by a
computer connected to the turbine.
The average measured electrical
output of the turbine after its
internal power needs are subtracted
(such as fans and compressors)
came to 68.4 kW during the half
year of its operation.
Due to design problems the heat
recovery system used only 62.4 kW
of waste heat on average.

Honeywell International Inc.

75 kW Microturbine CHP Application

Funding Partners
The costs of the installation were shared among:
PWGSC
CAN$ 143 K
NRCan
CAN$ 66 K
Enbridge Consumers Gas
CAN$ 50 K
Kinectrics
CAN$ 30 K
( formerly Ontario Hydro Technologies )

CAN$ 104 K of which went to the contractor, VESTAR.

CAN$ 77 K was the price of the turbine.

Cost Breakdown

Source: NRCan

Turbine

Actual
Cost (C$)
70,900

100%
Hindsight
70,900

50th
Installation
70,900

CHP unit

13,065

15,800

11060

Mechanical

19,425

19,330

17,330

Electrical

4,755

4,755

4,255

Civil

11,377

7,940

5,540

131

Metering

9,820

9,820

6,820

91

Consulting
Engineering
Project
Mangement

21,751

12,000

8,448

42,542

24,336

8,884

TOTAL

193,635

164,882

133,287

$/kW

2581

2198

1777

Item

Specific
Cost $/kW
945

378

232

1777

Cost Breakdown

Source: NRCan

Assuming 110 kW heat recovery, this investment has less

than a 1 year payback

Turbine
Heat Recovery
Civil/Electrical
Metering

This is where the main

cost reduction has to come

Funding Partners
The Technology Directorate of PWGSC originally
obtained funding from the Program for Energy
Research and Development (PERD) and later through
the Technology Development & Transfer (TD&T)
Program.
The installation was done by VESTAR as a designbuild through a contract with PWGSC, Technology (E.
Morofsky, Project Manager).

Site Description

Site selection:
The building requirements were to be
such as to continuously have a need
for at least 155 kW heat and 75 kW
electricity. The installation was to be
monitored and evaluated for 18
months.

Site Description

2301 Midland
Avenue, Scarborough

Site Description

Building Host:
Health Canada Laboratory Building
@ 2301 Midland Avenue
3-story building
approximate altitude of 600 ft.
The building has also recently undergone a FBI (Federal
Buildings Initiative) project that reduces its energy
consumption by 50% through more efficient lighting,
controls and a conversion of the constant volume ventilation
to a variable volume system. (Retrofit done by Vestar, an
energy services company supplying third party financing.)

Site Description

The Building Operator:

PWGSC - Ontario Region
Rick Schveighardt
Facility Manager
Health Protection Branch - Health Canada
2301 Midland Avenue, Scarborough, ON
M1P 4R7
Canada
Tel: (416) 512-5667
E-mail: Rick.Schveighardt@PWGSC.GC.CA

Site Description
Enclosure
Heat Rec. Unit

Concrete Pad

Turbine

Gas Meter

Transformer

Fuel
Sloped lines on water
loop

H2O

Site Description

Enclosure
Concrete Pad

Fuel

Power

75 kW Microturbine CHP Application

Reasons for doing the project

Benefits of CHP (Combined
Heat and Power) microturbines:
- Reduction of greenhouse gas production
- Potential energy cost savings
- Versatility and stand-alone capability
- Possibility of selling power back to grid

Reasons for doing the project

Microturbines are used successfully in oilfields
and it was suggested that they might be useful
for providing supplementary or back-up power
to buildings. The partners decided they wanted
to gain experience in the field of turbine cogeneration while exploring the feasibility of
the suggested application. The Midland Rd.
site is ideal since it is a lab and has a high
power demand year-round, including a use for
heated water.

Reasons for doing the project

Net Present Value of Microturbine Savings (Office Building)
Average Natural Gas Cost ($/GJ)
4

10

11

12

$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000

15 cents/kWh

$300,000

14 cents/kWh

$200,000

13 cents/kWh
12 cents/kWh

$100,000

11 cents/kWh

$0

10 cents/kWh

($100,000)

9 cents/kWh
8 cents/kWh

($200,000)

7 cents/kWh

($300,000)

6 cents/kWh

Generation Efficiency: 30%

Location: Ottawa
Discount Rate: 7%

($400,000)
($500,000)

5 cents/kWh
4 cents/kWh
3 cents/kWh

($600,000)
15

17

Source: PWGSC study

19

21

23

25

27

29

Average Natural Gas Cost (/m

31

33

35

37

39

41

43

45

All values in Canadian Funds

Project Objective
CETC DISTRIBUTED GENERATION PROGRAM

To obtain performance and operating experience

with a Microturbine Combined Heat and Power
system at the Health Canada Laboratory at 2301
Midland Road at high efficiency and low
exhaust emissions compared to other fossil fuel
generation power plants.

Project chronology: 2000 - 2001

April 12, 2000 Equipment Delivery (originally planned for September 30, 1999)
June 9, 2000 Commissioned (originally planned for October 30, 1999)
November 7, 2000 Unit shut down pending ETS Field Certification
June 9, 2000 - November 7, 2000 Availability: 60%
Gas compressor and core replaced after 2000 hours of operation
January, 2001 Monitoring Underway (originally planned for November 30,
1999)
January 4 Emissions Testing
January 26 A minor gas leak was detected by Enbridge and repaired by
Honeywell.
February 5 Versatech (mechanical contractor) replaced the bottom flange of
gas meter and installed a flexible connector to the cogeneration unit.
February 6 Vestar restarted the co-gen unit at 10:30 a.m. Logging was
restarted at 12:00 noon (after 2614 hours of operation).
February 8 Turbine stopped at 2 p.m.

Project chronology: 2001

February 9 Enbridge found the unit had been off for an unknown amount of
time with the fault light lit. The key was turned from the normal position to the off
position.
February 15 Honeywell checked the unit and started it up at 1 p.m.
March 7 Kinectrics turned the microturbine off briefly to install a power quality
meter for a test. The power level was measured at 75kW.
March 14 Honeywell performed a retrofit on the plenum sealing and fan hub
upgrade.
March 27 Honeywell fixed a leak on the outlet of the flex line to the ASCO
solenoid and added 500ml of oil to the gas compressor, then got the unit up and
running but it stopped at 4 p.m.
March 29 - Turbine restarted at 12 p.m.
April 6 The computer was found off; the data may not be good.
April 6 The computer was found off; the data may not be good.
April 23 Honeywell attempted an efficiency test but the unit shut itself down
after 8:30 a.m. and the test was delayed.

Project chronology: 2001

April 24 Honeywell suspects the shut-down is due to an ignitor which will be

replaced.
May 9 Honeywell installed the new ignitor and a new inlet air filter. The cooling
module oil was found to be leaking and the unit was shut back down.
June 7 Honeywell replaced the cooling module and the unit was running again
by 4:00 p.m.
June 15 Enbridge found the fault light flashing on the unit but it was left running
until it switched off on its own at 8 a.m.
June 25 Honeywell added 350ml of oil, checked for faults then switched the
unit back on at 12 p.m.
June 28 The fault light was flashing.
June 30 At approximately 11 p.m. the gas meters first erratic reading is
recorded.
July 6 The fault light had switched off by itself.
July 11 At approximately 11 p.m. the increasingly erratic gas meter stops
reading gas flow altogether.

Project chronology: 2001

July 18 The unit switched of at 5 a.m.

July 20 The unit was found off with the fault light on, and the unit would not
restart.
July 24 The unit is still off, the oil was topped up and the filters drained
before restarting at 12 p.m.
July 27 The Unit was running O.K.
August 9 At start up, there was a flashing red light but no obvious fault.
500ml of oil was added. The filters were cleaned. Unit seemed to be running
fine. The reclaimer damper linkage was disconnected and wired open.
August 15 The unit switched itself off at 5 a.m.
August 17 The unit was found off with the fault light steadily lit.
August 24 The unit was still off and waiting to be serviced.
August 31 The unit was checked but left off.
September 7 The unit was still off.
Honeywell has since recalled all its microturbine units.

2001 Performance Summary

The microturbine logged 2939 hours in 2001 for a
total of 5553 hours of operation at final shut down.
From the February power up until the August shut
down the unit had an overall availability of 64.55 %
Typical values under steady running conditions :
natural gas consumption 1000 std.cubic feet / hour or 269.6
kW (LHV)
26 % turbine efficiency @ ~70 kW power output
30 % heat efficiency
@ ~80 kW heat output

Overall averages:
power output:
heat output:

68.4
62.4

kW
kW

Inverter, transformer, and parasitic losses: 5 kW

2001 Performance Summary

Estimated Parasitic Losses: 1.4 -1.6 kW (fans, fuel
compressor)
Thermal Performance:
Large thermal losses due to enclosure cooling air blowing
over and through silencer system.
Good heat balance obtained around Unifin heat recovery
system. The problem is the approach temperature is not
the 250 C expected but 191 C
Likely fix will involve insulating duct from recuperator
discharge; need to avoid restricting enclosure cooling flow
which is significant

Average gas properties over test period:

HHV
LHV

1012.6 Btu/CuFt
920.55 Btu/CuFt

(0.2965 kWh/CuFt)
(0.2696 kWh/CuFt)

Temperature

Temperature in Deg. Celcius

40

30

20

10

Max. Temp. deg. C

Avg. Temp. deg. C
Min. Temp. deg. C

-10

-20
0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Month

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

Availability

100

March

90

July

Percent Availability

80

April

70

February

60

June

50

August

40
30
20
10

May

0
0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Month

September
5

5.5

6.5

7.5

Meter Output
1200

400

300
800
600
400

200
STD CuFt/Hr
Fuel Rate in kW
Btu Meter (kW)
Power Out (kW)

100
200
0
0
15-Feb 17-Feb 19-Feb 21-Feb 23-Feb 25-Feb 27-Feb 1-Mar

Kilowatts

Cubic Feet Natural Gas

1000

Performance and Temperature

40

Percent Efficiency

35.00

30

30.00
20

25.00
20.00

10

15.00

10.00
5.00
0.00

Heat Efficiency (% )
Turbine Efficiency (% )
Outside Temp. (deg C)

-10
-20

Outdoor Temperature (deg. C)

40.00

Hourly Net Heat Rate Btu / kWh (HHV)

(based on hourly power and heat rates)
10000
9000

Btu / kWh (HHV)

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
15-Feb

17-Feb

19-Feb

21-Feb

23-Feb

25-Feb

27-Feb

1-Mar

Heat Balance 4th January

0C Ambient ( all data in kW)
LOSSES 37

191 C

75 STACK
91
C

LOSSES
to ambient
temperature

70
POWER

84
HEAT

75
271 GAS

Emission Testing January 4th

Performance Summary

Preliminary Emission Results

(g/kWh)
75 kW

50 kW

25 kW

NOx

1.704

1.2168

1.296

CO

2.352

23.904

85.392

THC

0.0384

2.916

5.5152

Source: NRCan

Performance Summary

Emission Data (dry ppm)

75 kW

50 kW

25 kW

NOx

28.4

15.1

8.8

CO

63.9

488

952

THC

1.9

104.1

107.5

Source: NRCan

75 kW Microturbine CHP Application

Conclusions
The heat recovery was lower than expected (62.4 vs
155 kW) due to thermal losses on uninsulated parts of
the recuperator and a reduced thermal output in winter.
The heating circuit design was a success using water
instead of glycol in an outside freezing environment.
The noise issue, which had originally concerned the
building operator, proved not to be a problem.
The emission data was found to be within
specifications.

Conclusions
The gas compressor caused problems because it was
not registered with the local fuel safety organization
and was noisy and unreliable.
Is the installation economic and how many
buildings are suitable for microturbine application?
Many aspects of the installation at Midland Avenue
would be done differently if we had a second chance.
Most of these were due to inexperience with
installing and operating a microturbine at a
building site. We will be analyzing these issues and
recommending standard installation procedures.

Conclusions
The Health Canada Laboratory is not a typical
building but other building types where clients require
highly reliable power or dependable standby power
with strict dehumidification requirements are potential
applications. This would include laboratories,
museums, computer facilities and 24/7 operations, and
office buildings with alternate cooling needs.