a performance study covering 63 european plants...

Biomass CHP in practice

A performance study covering 63 European plants

Preliminary edition covering 12 out of 24 months’ data sets

Publishable version

Altener contract no. 4.1030/Z/02-150/2002

Prepared by: Anders Evald, FORCE Technology, Denmark and Janet Witt, Institute for Energy and Environment, Germany

September 2005

Contents Contents ...................................................................................................................................2 Preface .....................................................................................................................................4 Introduction...............................................................................................................................5

Project partners.................................................................................................................5 Method ..............................................................................................................................5 Data collection...................................................................................................................7 Data collected ...................................................................................................................7 Other dissemination activities ...........................................................................................7

1. Biogas and landfill gas plants..............................................................................................8 Figure 1.1 Utilization period and availability versus plant size .........................................9 Figure 1.2 Energy production versus efficiency .............................................................10 Figure 1.3 Biogas production versus plant size .............................................................11 Figure 1.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies ..........................................................12 Figure 1.5 Efficiency over time.......................................................................................13 Figure 1.6 Efficiency versus size....................................................................................14

2. Gasification plants .............................................................................................................15 Figure 2.1 Utilization period and availability versus plant size .......................................16 Figure 2.2 Energy production versus efficiency .............................................................17 Figure 2.3 Fuels used ....................................................................................................18 Figure 2.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies ..........................................................19 Figure 2.5 Own power consumption ..............................................................................20 Figure 2.6 Efficiency over time.......................................................................................21

3. CFB plants.........................................................................................................................22 Figure 3.1 Utilization period and availability versus plant size .......................................23 Figure 3.2 Energy production versus efficiency .............................................................24 Figure 3.3 Fuels used ....................................................................................................25 Figure 3.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies ..........................................................26 Figure 3.5 Own power consumption ..............................................................................27 Figure 3.6 Efficiency over time.......................................................................................28

4. BFB Plants ........................................................................................................................29 Figure 4.1 Utilization period and availability versus plant size .......................................30 Figure 4.2 Energy production versus efficiency .............................................................31 Figure 4.3 Fuels used ....................................................................................................32 Figure 4.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies ..........................................................33 Figure 4.5 Own power consumption ..............................................................................34 Figure 4.6 Efficiency over time.......................................................................................35

5. Grate fired boiler plants .....................................................................................................36 Figure 5.1 Utilization period and availability versus plant size .......................................37 Figure 5.2 Energy production versus efficiency .............................................................38 Figure 5.3 Fuels used ....................................................................................................39 Figure 5.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies ..........................................................40 Figure 5.5 Own power consumption ..............................................................................41 Figure 5.6 Efficiency over time.......................................................................................42

6. MSW grate fired boiler plants ............................................................................................43 Figure 6.1 Utilization period and availability versus plant size .......................................44 Figure 6.2 Energy production versus efficiency .............................................................45 Figure 6.3 Fuels used ....................................................................................................46 Figure 6.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies ..........................................................47 Figure 6.5 Own power consumption ..............................................................................48 Figure 6.6 Efficiency over time.......................................................................................49

7. Dust fired steam boiler plants............................................................................................50

BIO-CHP 12 month report – September 2005 2

Appendix 1 List of key figures and information collected from all plants ...............................51 Appendix 2 List of monthly data collected from all plants in all months ................................54


Preface This report is the first technical report on results from the activities in the Altener project “Bio-CHP - European Biomass CHP in practice”, Altener contract no. 4.1030/Z/02-150/2002. The report contains the first technical results from data analysis covering a 12 month period. Information on individual plants cannot be recognized from data in this report. Due to the level of anonymity required from a number of plants participating in the project all plants are anonymous, even if many plants have accepted full publication of individual data. This is necessary to protect the required anonymity for those plants who cannot accept publication of plant specific data. To enable clear reading of the included graphics, we recommend that you print the report in colour or read it on a colour display. For more information about the project or admission to the newsletter mailing list please check web site at: http://bio-chp.force.dk - or contact the project co-ordinator: Mr. Anders Evald FORCE Technology E-mail: [email protected] Anders Evald September 2005


mailto:[email protected]

Introduction The BIO-CHP project intends to contribute to an increased - and more efficient - use of biomass for combined heat and power (CHP) production in Europe. From 2003 to 2006 the project will collect and disseminate biomass CHP experience based on collected data from more than 60 existing CHP plants in Denmark, The Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Sweden and Finland. BIO-CHP is partly funded by the European Commission Altener programme. The Project aims are to

• Promote biomass CHP in Europe by displaying experiences from solid biomass (including co-firing), Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), anaerobic digestion gas and landfill gas fuelled CHP plants and highlighting plants with the best operation

• Provide e.g. authorities and future plant owners with information about what

performance to expect from biomass CHP plants and about best available technologies. This will help ensuring high quality of future plants

• Enable benchmarking and thus identify the improvement potential of the existing

European CHP plants

• Replicate best practices on the operation of biomass CHP plants by extensive dissemination activities

• Create a network for exchange of good and not so good CHP experiences

Project partners A total of 6 EU countries are partners in the project, each covering CHP plants in their home country, as well as other project activities.

Elvira Lutter, Ôstereichische Energieagentur - Austrian Energy Agency (AEA), Austria Harrie Knoef, BTG Biomass Technology Group BV, The Netherlands Kati Veijonen, VTT Processes, Finland Johan Vinterbäck, Swedish Bioenergy Association Service AB, Sweden Janet Witt, Institute for Energy and Environment, Germany Anders Evald, FORCE Technology, Denmark

Method A large number of combined heat and power plants located in the participating countries are invited to take part in the project as suppliers of key plant data and specific monthly operational figures and statistics. In return the plants receive access to a large data material covering similar installations in their home country and in other countries, which enables them to compare their own performance with others. This way changes can be made in operational patterns, in installations etc. to enable the plants to achieve an improved economic and environmental performance. The participating plants to a varying extent accept to have their data disclosed in reports or on the project web-page.


Data from the key figures and monthly data sheets are entered into a common database format (Access), where all data from all plants during the whole project are organised. All data are entered into the database by FORCE Technology from standard format Excel data files with primary data collected by the project partners. From the database are drawn monthly data, averages, key figures etc. for analysis into this report, a similar report at the end of the project and a best practice guide, which gives guidance to existing and future plants on how to achieve optimal performance. The results from the first 12 month period are given in a series of graphics set up in a separate Excel session by partner IE in Germany. For each plant a series of key performance indicators are calculated. These parameters are the key to assessing operational performance from one month to the next, and in comparison with other plants. The participating plants cover a wide range of technologies, which is classified into 7 categories:

• Biogas and landfill plants • Gasification plants • CFB (circulating fluidized bed) plants • BFB (bubbling fluidized bed) plants • Grate-fired steam boiler plants using uncontaminated biomass • Grate-fired steam boiler plants using MSW as a fuel • Dust fired steam boiler plants

Several classifications have been considered; this one was chosen as the main division between plants to give comparable Key Performance Indicators, and significant recommendations in the best practise guide. Project target was to cover a total of 60 CHP plants. Some additional plants were included from the outset in order to compensate for an expected fall-out of plants, who during the project period would stop data delivery due to causes such as change of ownership, major operational problems, useless data quality, missing data etc. From initial 72 plants involved in the project, the total number of plants following the whole first 12 months of the data collection period has been 63. Some 9 plants for various reasons have dropped out of the project. The partners participating in the project each has the following portfolio of participating CHP plants:

• Denmark: 12 plants initially involved, 1 dropped out in the first 12 month period. • Finland: 11 plants initially involved, 1 likely to drop out after the first 12 month period • Germany: 14 plants initially involved, 3 dropped out during the first 12 month period • Netherlands: 11 plants initially involved including 1 in Switzerland and one in United

Kingdom, 1 have dropped out and 1 has stopped operation • Austria: 12 plants initially involved, 1 dropped out in the first 12 month period • Sweden: 12 plants initially involved, 1 dropped out in the first 12 month period

In some countries, especially in the Netherlands, the local plants were reluctant to take up a role in the project. It was decided to take in interesting CHP plants from a few other countries


under the Netherlands data collection scheme. Thus the list of plants from the Netherlands data collection portfolio includes one plant in Switzerland and one plant in Northern Ireland.

Data collection Information on key figures and monthly data are collected in the participating partner countries, validated and passed on the central database system in FORCE Technology, Denmark. Monthly operational data are collected for 24 months. This report covers the results from the first 12 months. A huge effort has been put into assuring high quality of data. This has been done through careful evaluation of primary data from the plants comparing them with data from earlier months, through formal quality control in other project partner offices and through identification of outliers in the total data system when files from all plants are compared and analysed. However even after this effort we are not in a position where we can guarantee 100% correct data in this huge dataset covering more than 100 parameters for 60 plants in 24 months.

Data collected The collection of monthly data covers a total of 24 month, starting with September 2003 and ending with August 2004 for the first 12 months and ending August 2005 for the total period. Please refer to the appendices for the two complete tables, showing all data and information collected from the individual plants as key figures (general figures and information) and as monthly data for up until now 12 months. Environmental performance data are collected, but analysis of these data are not included in this first 12 month report. A total of 5 environmental parameters are covered.

Other dissemination activities A project website on the address http://bio-chp.dk-teknik.dk has been established. The site covers all kinds of project related information, and includes this intermediate technical report, the e-mail newsletters, the best practice guide etc. as they are released. E-mail newsletters will be distributed to a European target audience. First newsletter will be sent September 2005 when this report and data from the first 12 month period is available on the homepage. A workshop is scheduled for two days in March 2006 in Innsbruck, Austria. One day is reserved for a seminar, mainly focusing on the result of the project; the other day is reserved for site visits to CHP-plants in the area.


http://bio-chp.dk-teknik.dk/

1. Biogas and landfill gas plants


Figure 1.1 Utilization period and availability

availibility [%] and utilisation period [%]

0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

72 64 24 30 42 18 44 46 40 34 26 52 50 2 32 65 29 36 47

utili

satio

n pe

riod

& a

vaila

bilit

y [%

]

utilisation period availability

Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 19 biogas and landfill gas plants Utilization period: Number of equivalent full load hours, calculated as monthly produced power in MWh divided by the plant capacity in MW. Here shown as a relative figure as the utilization period compared to number of hours in the month. The utilization period expresses the extent to which the plant capacity is utilized: a low figure means low capacity utilization caused by stand still or part load operation, a high figure means constant full load operation. Availability: Extent to which the plant is ready for operation (not necessarily in operation). Calculated as 100% - (weighted hours of out of operation due to damage + hours out of operation due to of revision) / hours in a month Remarks: Several plants uses the installed capacity only about 25%. This is a severe loss on invested capital. There seems to be a tendency that the larger plants has a lower utilization of installed capacity (not shown in graphics). The majority of plants have a very high availability.


Figure 1.2 Energy production versus efficiency

annual energy production vs total efficiency for individual plants

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

72 64 24 30 42 18 44 46 40 34 26 52 50 2 32 65 29 36 47

plant number

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh/

a]

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

effic

ienc

y [%

]

heat production power production total efficiency electric efficiency

Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 19 biogas and landfill gas plants Energy production: Total production of heat and electricity for the plant in the period. Electric efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced divided by gas heating value consumed. Total efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced and net heat produced divided by gas heating value consumed. Remarks: There is no clear indication that larger plants are more efficient than smaller plants.


Figure 1.3 Biogas production

biogas production to volumetric biomass inputand to digester capacity [m³/m³]

(plants without biogas production figures are landfill gas plants)

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

72 64 24 30 42 18 44 46 40 34 26 52 50 2 32 65 29 36 47

[m³/m

³]

biogas production /biomass input

biogas production /digester volume

Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 biogas plants (landfill gas plants shows no valid data in this analysis) Biogas production / biomass input: Ratio of produced gas versus m3 of raw biomass material used in the plant Biogas production / digester volume Ratio of produced gas versus the volume of the digester tank. Remarks: The plants show huge variation in the efficiency of producing gas the biomass raw material – from 20 to more than 200. This is probably caused by different raw materials used. There is an extreme variation in the gas production based on digester volume. From 15 to 120 m3 / m3. There is no indication that plant size has any influence on these important performance parameters.


Figure 1.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies nominal efficiency vs operational efficiency for individual plants

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

effic

ienc

ies

[%]

operational electric efficiency operational heat efficiencynominal electric efficiency nominal total efficiency

Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 19 biogas and landfill gas plants. Some plants shown do not have valid figures for heat production. Operational efficiency: Electricity and heat produced divided by gas lower heating value. Based on operational data from the plants. Nominal efficiency: Same figures, as anticipated by designers and plant owners as the expected nominal performance of the plant. Remarks: Except for one plant, the practical total efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. For all plant, where data validation allows this comparison, the electric efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. As income from sales of electricity is the main sales value for most plant (heat is less significant from an economic point of view) this has a great negative impact on the economic performance of the plants.


Figure 1.5 Efficiency over time

total efficiency of individual plant over 12 month

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

sep-03 Oct 03 nov-03 Dec03

jan-04 feb-04 Mar 04 apr-04 maj-04 jun-04 jul-04 aug-04

tota

l effi

cien

cy p

er m

onth

72 64 24 42 30 18 44 40 34 11

26 52 50 32 2 65 36 46 29 47

Period: Monthly values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 19 biogas and landfill gas plants. Some plants shown do not have valid figures for heat production. Total efficiency: This is the total of heat and power production divided by gas consumption in the plant measured in energy units (lower heating value). Remarks: Variation in efficiency from month to month is very high. This implies improvement option for the individual plant by carefully following these data and copying operational patterns from the best months (choice of biomass raw material, operational pattern, load condition etc.)


Figure 1.6 Efficiency versus size nominal electric efficiency and nominal power capacity vs

operational electric efficiency, net (per modul)

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

nominal power capacity [MW]

nom

inal

& o

pera

tiona

l eff

icie

ncy

[%]

nominal values(blue=biogas plant;green=landfill gas plant)

operational electricefficiency (12 month)

Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 19 biogas and landfill gas plants. Some plants shown do not have valid figures for heat production. Definitions: As in other graphics. Remarks: Exact capacity figures not shown for anonymity reasons. There are indications that larger plants have higher efficiency, however this is not very significant.


2. Gasification plants




0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

56 23 54 1

utili

satio

n pe

riod

& a

vaila

bilit

y[%

]


Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 4 gasification plants Utilization period: Number of equivalent full load hours, calculated as monthly produced power in MWh divided by the plant capacity in MW. Here shown as a relative figure as the utilization period compared to number of hours in the month. The utilization period expresses the extent to which the plant capacity is utilized: a low figure means low capacity utilization caused by stand still or part load operation, a high figure means constant full load operation. Availability: Extent to which the plant is ready for operation (not necessarily in operation). Calculated as 100% - (weighted hours of out of operation due to damage + hours out of operation due to of revision) / hours in a month Remarks: Two of four plants use the installed capacity only to about 35%. This is a loss on invested capital. Availability is low: the plants not ready for operation more than 10% of the time; one plant even 41% of the time.




0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

56 23 54 1plant number

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh/

a]

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

effic

ienc

y [%

]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 4 gasification plants Energy production: Total production of heat and electricity for the plant in the period. For clear presentation of the comparison between the plants, the energy production for plant no. 1 is indicated as the maximum within the scale shown. In reality this plants is much bigger than this. Electric efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Total efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced and net heat produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Remarks: There is no clear indication that larger plants are more efficient than smaller plants. The electric efficiency is low.


Figure 2.3 Fuels used

fuel input classification

3897

1792

34

0

265

5

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

56 23 54 1plant number

aver

age

fuel

inpu

t [M

Wh/

mon

th]

renewable fuel fossil fuel

Period: Total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 4 gasification plants Fuel consumption: For clear presentation of the comparison between the plants, the fuel consumption for plant no. 1 is indicated as the maximum within the scale shown. In reality this plants is much bigger than this. Remarks: The gasification plants are very different in size.


Figure 2.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies

nominal efficiency vs operational efficiency for individual plants

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

effic

ienc

ies

[%]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 4 gasification plants Operational efficiency: Electricity and heat produced divided by gas lower heating value. Based on operational data from the plants. Nominal efficiency: Same figures, as anticipated by designers and plant owners as the expected nominal performance of the plant. Remarks: The practical total efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. Further, the electric efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. As income from sales of electricity is the main sales value for most plant (heat is less significant from an economic point of view) this has a great negative impact on the economic performance of the plants.


Figure 2.5 Own power consumption

own power consumption to fuel input and gross power output

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

56 23 54 1

spec

ific

own

pow

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

[MW

h/M

Wh]

Specific own consumption to fuel inputSpecific own consumption to gross power output

Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 4 gasification plants Own consumption: Internal consumption of electricity at the gasification plant Remarks: For the 3 plants where valid data are available, the internal power consumption are 12 to 16 % of the power produced. This significantly reduces the economic performance of the plants.


Figure 2.6 Efficiency over time total efficiency of individual plant over 12 month

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

sep-03 Oct 03 nov-03 Dec 03 jan-04 feb-04 Mar 04 apr-04 maj-04 jun-04 jul-04 aug-04

tota

l effi

cien

cy p

er m

onth

56 23 54 1

Period: Monthly values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 4 gasification plants Total efficiency: This is the total of heat and power production divided by fuel consumption in the plant measured in energy units (lower heating value). Remarks: Seasonal variation in efficiency is very high. This implies improvement options for the individual plant by carefully following these data and copying operational patterns from the best months (choice of biomass raw material, operational pattern, load condition etc.). Further there seems to be a slight seasonal variation, showing lower efficiency during the summer. This is most likely caused by part load operation during the summer, where heat demand is low or by reduced heat sales during summer, where some plants operate wholly or partly as condensing power units.


3. CFB plants




0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

62 66 61 15 17 9 10 25 33 51

utili

satio

n pe

riod

& a

vaila

bilit

y [%

]


Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 10 CFB plants Utilization period: Number of equivalent full load hours, calculated as monthly produced power in MWh divided by the plant capacity in MW. Here shown as a relative figure as the utilization period compared to number of hours in the month. The utilization period expresses the extent to which the plant capacity is utilized: a low figure means low capacity utilization caused by stand still or part load operation, a high figure means constant full load operation. Availability: Extent to which the plant is ready for operation (not necessarily in operation). Calculated as 100% - (weighted hours of out of operation due to damage + hours out of operation due to of revision) / hours in a month Remarks: Several plants utilize installed capacity very badly. Availability for some plants is only 75 % to 85 % thus the plants are not ready for operation 15-25% of the time. There are no indications that larger plants are better than smaller plants.




0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

62 66 61 15 17 9 10 25 33 51

plant number

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh/

a]

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

effic

ienc

y [%

]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 10 CFB plants Energy production: Total production of heat and electricity for the plant in the period. Electric efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Total efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced and net heat produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Remarks: The larger plants show a significantly better electric efficiency than the smaller plants. Total efficiency is not dependent on size, showing that smaller plants compensate for lower electric efficiency by higher heat utilization. The electric efficiency is not impressive, less than 30% in most cases.




20.788 22.276

45.594

64.732

33.664

51.955

38971792

12.75335709

42

63.078

223

49

2

366

0

265174 1.102

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

62 66 61 15 17 9 10 25 33 51plant number

aver

age

fuel

inpu

t [M

Wh/

mon

th]


Period: Total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 10 CFB plants Remarks: Virtually all CFB units use fossil fuels to some extent, showing that these are certainly versatile boilers. One unit uses biomass only as a minor fraction of the fuel – this plant is not however performing better or worse in any other key performance indicator.



(values >1 according to flue gas condenser units)

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

effic

ienc

ies

[%]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 10 CFB plants Operational efficiency: Electricity and heat produced divided by fuel lower heating value. Based on operational data from the plants. Nominal efficiency: Same figures, as anticipated by designers and plant owners as the expected nominal performance of the plant. Remarks: The practical total efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. Further and more important from an economic point of view, the electric efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. As income from sales of electricity is the main sales value for most plant (heat is less significant from an economic point of view) this has a great negative impact on the economic performance of the plants. Some plants show efficiencies above 100% - these are equipped with flue gas condensing systems.




0,000,05

0,100,15

0,200,25

0,300,35

0,400,45

0,50

62 66 61 15 17 9 10 25 33 51

spec

ific

own

pow

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

[MW

h/M

Wh]

Specific own consumption to fuel input Specific own consumption to gross power output

Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 10 CFB plants Own consumption: Internal consumption of electricity at the CFB plant Remarks: 10 to 20% own consumption seems to be the rule for this type of CHP plant. This is significant and a high figure. Two plants have extremely high own consumption: 30 and 45 % of power produced. This should certainly be investigated by the plants involved.




0,000,100,200,300,400,500,600,700,800,901,001,10


tota

l effi

cien

cy p

er m

onth

62 66 61 15 17 9 10 25 33 51

Period: Monthly values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 10 CFB plants Total efficiency: This is the total of heat and power production divided by fuel consumption in the plant measured in energy units (lower heating value). Remarks: Variation in efficiency from month to month for this technology is smaller than other CHP technologies. This indicates less influence from part load operation, and generally stable operating conditions. However, when the number of operational hours in a certain month is very low due to annual revision, this may affect strongly in the efficiency of that month as start-up and shut-down are reasonably exceptional moments in power plant operation.


4. BFB Plants




0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

63 21 37 7 13 43 49 39 55 31 19

utili

satio

n pe

riod

& a

vaila

bilit

y [%

]


Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 11 BFB plants Utilization period: Number of equivalent full load hours, calculated as monthly produced power in MWh divided by the plant capacity in MW. Here shown as a relative figure as the utilization period compared to number of hours in the month. The utilization period expresses the extent to which the plant capacity is utilized: a low figure means low capacity utilization caused by stand still or part load operation, a high figure means constant full load operation. Availability: Extent to which the plant is ready for operation (not necessarily in operation). Calculated as 100% - (weighted hours of out of operation due to damage + hours out of operation due to of revision) / hours in a month Remarks: Several plants utilize installed capacity very badly, less than 50% is common. Availability for some plants is only 75 % to 85 %, this should give cause for action by these plants. There are no indications that larger plants are better than smaller plants. For a few of the plants showing very high availability (e.g. plant 43 and 49), there might be a mistake in data or data handling. These figures will be corrected for the final project report, including 24 month data. The low utilization period shown for plant 43 and 49 are caused by these plants not supplying data for the full period.




0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

63 21 37 7 13 43 49 39 55 31 19plant number

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh/

a]

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

effic

ienc

y [%

]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 11 BFB plants Energy production: Total production of heat and electricity for the plant in the period. Electric efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Total efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced and net heat produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Remarks: The electric efficiency is not impressive, less than 30% in most cases. No size dependency is observed. Some plants operate wholly or partly as condensing power. This reduces heat production as well as the heat part of total efficiency.




25.93542.001

18.458

57.97273.207

96.775

149.771

3570915.017 1792 3897

120 26516

2.954

2.769

959

179

301

18

11.874

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

160.000

63 21 37 7 13 43 49 39 55 31 19plant number

aver

age

fuel

inpu

t [M

Wh/

mon

th]


Period: Total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 11 BFB plants Remarks: Virtually all BFB units use fossil fuels to a small extent, showing that these are certainly versatile boilers.




0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

effic

ienc

ies

[%]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 11 BFB plants Operational efficiency: Electricity and heat produced divided by fuel lower heating value. Based on operational data from the plants. Nominal efficiency: Same figures, as anticipated by designers and plant owners as the expected nominal performance of the plant. Remarks: The practical total efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. Further and more important from an economic point of view, the electric efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal for 10 plants out of 11 As income from sales of electricity is the main sales value for most plant (heat is less significant from an economic point of view) this has a great negative impact on the economic performance of the plants. Some plants show efficiencies above 100% - these are equipped with flue gas condensing systems.



own power consumption to fuel input vs gross power output

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

63 21 37 7 13 43 49 39 55 31 19

spec

ific

own

pow

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

[MW

h/M

Wh]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 11 BFB plants Own consumption: Internal consumption of electricity at the BFB plant Remarks: 10 to 20% own consumption seems to be the rule also for this type of CHP plant. This is significant and a high figure.




0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

1,1


tota

l eff

icie

ncy

per

mon

th

63 21 37 7 13 43 49 39 55 31 19

Period: Monthly values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 11 BFB plants Total efficiency: This is the total of heat and power production divided by fuel consumption in the plant measured in energy units (lower heating value). Remarks: Some plants show significant drop in efficiency in some months. This could be investigated to improve future performance.


5. Grate fired boiler plants




0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

48 41 4 6 20 60 14 57 82 5 3 16 22 45 35

utili

satio

n pe

riod

& a

vaila

bilit

y [%

]


Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 grate fired boiler plants Utilization period: Number of equivalent full load hours, calculated as monthly produced power in MWh divided by the plant capacity in MW. Here shown as a relative figure as the utilization period compared to number of hours in the month. The utilization period expresses the extent to which the plant capacity is utilized: a low figure means low capacity utilization caused by stand still or part load operation, a high figure means constant full load operation. Availability: Extent to which the plant is ready for operation (not necessarily in operation). Calculated as 100% - (weighted hours of out of operation due to damage + hours out of operation due to of revision) / hours in a month Remarks: Several plants utilize installed capacity very badly, less than 50% is common and some is even below 25%. As production for a CHP unit is limited by the possibility to sell heat to a limited distribution network, there could be reason for a general concern of oversizing the plants to the given heat demand. Oversizing might lead to higher electricity sales during heat peak season, but it also means investing money in more or less useless capacity for the rest of the year. Availability for most plants is acceptable, however some plants with much lower availability should look for the cause of this situation and correct it. There are no indications that larger plants are better than smaller plants.




0

100.000

200.000

300.000

400.000

500.000

600.000

700.000

800.000

900.000

48 41 4 6 20 60 14 57 82 5 3 16 22 45 35

plant number

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh/

a]

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

effic

ienc

y [%

]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 grate fired boiler plants Energy production: Total production of heat and electricity for the plant in the period. Electric efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Total efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced and net heat produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Remarks: The electric efficiency is not impressive, less than 25% in most cases. The larger plants show higher efficiencies.




248

2

29.456

7500 2651

744 0 0 22

201

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

70.000

80.000

90.000

48 41 4 6 20 60 14 57 82 5 3 16 22 45 35plant number

aver

age

fuel

inpu

t [M

Wh/

mon

th]

renewable fuel fossil fuel Period: Total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 grate fired boiler plants Remarks: Only a few of the grate fired boiler use fuel supplement by fossil fuels. Plant nr. 35 is a dedicated co-firing unit combining wood chips and natural gas. This plant also show the highest electric efficiency in the group.



(values >1 according flue gas condenser units)

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

1,2

effic

ienc

ies

[%]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 grate fired plants Operational efficiency: Electricity and heat produced divided by fuel lower heating value. Based on operational data from the plants. Nominal efficiency: Same figures, as anticipated by designers and plant owners as the expected nominal performance of the plant. Remarks: The practical total efficiency is significantly lower than the nominal. More important however: the electric efficiency is many cases much lower than nominal, under practical condition less than 10 %! As income from sales of electricity is the main sales value for most plant (heat is less significant from an economic point of view) this has a great negative impact on the economic performance of the plants. Some plants show efficiencies near 100% - these are equipped with flue gas condensing systems.




0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

48 41 4 6 20 60 14 57 82 5 3 16 22 45 35spec

ific

own

pow

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

[MW

h/M

Wh]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 grate fired plants Own consumption: Internal consumption of electricity at the plant Remarks: 8 to 15% own consumption seems to be the rule also for this type of CHP plant. This is less than the CFB and BFB plants, but still a significant and a high figure. Some plants show extremely high own consumption. This should be investigated.


Figure 5.6 Efficiency over time total efficiency of individual plant over 12 month(values >1 according flue gas condenser units)

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

1,1


tota

l effi

cien

cy p

er m

onth

48 41 4 6 20 60 14

57 82 5 16 22 45 35 Period: Monthly values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 15 grate fired plants Total efficiency: This is the total of heat and power production divided by fuel consumption in the plant measured in energy units (lower heating value). Remarks: This class of CHP plants shows more stable efficiency during the year than the other classes. Some plants exhibit months with much lower than usual efficiency. This should be investigated by the plant owners.


6. MSW grate fired boiler plants




0,00

0,25

0,50

0,75

1,00

3 12 28 59 38 27 53 8

utili

satio

n pe

riod

& a

vaila

bilit

y [%

]


Period: Average values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 8 MSW grate fired boiler plants Utilization period: Number of equivalent full load hours, calculated as monthly produced power in MWh divided by the plant capacity in MW. Here shown as a relative figure as the utilization period compared to number of hours in the month. The utilization period expresses the extent to which the plant capacity is utilized: a low figure means low capacity utilization caused by stand still or part load operation, a high figure means constant full load operation. Availability: Extent to which the plant is ready for operation (not necessarily in operation). Calculated as 100% - (weighted hours of out of operation due to damage + hours out of operation due to of revision) / hours in a month Remarks: Availability is rather low, but more even between the 8 plants. A low figure here must be attributed to the use of MSW, which causes regular maintenance work on the boiler. Utilization is better than other technologies, however 38 % capacity utilization is low for a technology with such high investment costs.




0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

3 12 28 59 38 27 53 8plant number

ener

gy p

rodu

ctio

n [M

Wh/

a]

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

effic

ienc

y [%

]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 8 MSW grate fired boiler plants Energy production: Total production of heat and electricity for the plant in the period. Electric efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Total efficiency: Annual average efficiency measured as net power produced and net heat produced divided by fuel heating value consumed. Remarks: The electric efficiency is not impressive, less than 25% in most cases. There seems to be a tendency, that the smaller plants show slightly lower efficiency.




0

3892.357

0

37.712

265

4.586

542

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

3 12 28 59 38 27 53 8plant number

aver

age

fuel

inpu

t [M

Wh/

mon

th]


Period: Total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 8 MSW grate fired boiler plants Remarks: Small fractions of fossil fuel are used in the MSW boilers for start-up and support fuel. For plant nr. 3, only a small use of oil is anticipated, and the figures given here raise concern.


Figure 6.4 Practice versus theory for efficiencies

nominal efficiency vs operational efficiency for individual plants, (values >1 according flue gas condenser unit)

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

effic

ienc

ies

[%]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 8 MSW grate fired boiler plants Operational efficiency: Electricity and heat produced divided by fuel lower heating value. Based on operational data from the plants. Nominal efficiency: Same figures, as anticipated by designers and plant owners as the expected nominal performance of the plant. Remarks: Like other CHP plants no one is over performing, all plant are to a larger or smaller extent performing poorer than anticipated in the nominal data. The very large difference between expected electric efficiency and practical data for plant 3, 12 and 28 should be investigated. Plant no. 3 has flue gas condensing system, this causing efficiencies above 100%.




0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

3 12 28 59 38 27 53 8spec

ific

own

pow

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

[MW

h/M

Wh]


Period: Average and total values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 8 MSW grate fired boiler plants Own consumption: Internal consumption of electricity at the plant Remarks: 3 plants seem to operate fine with low internal power consumption. 2 plants are intermediate, and 3 plants, 3, 12 and 28, show extremely high own consumption of electricity. This may be the primary reason for the same plants showing very low net electric efficiency.


Figure 6.6 Efficiency over time

total efficiency of individual plant over 12 month

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0


tota

l effi

cien

cy p

er m

onth

3 12 28 59 38 27 53 8

Period: Monthly values for 12 months, August 2003 to September 2004 Plants: 8 MSW grate fired boiler plants Total efficiency: This is the total of heat and power production divided by fuel consumption in the plant measured in energy units (lower heating value). Remarks: Most plant show stable operating performance. Some, especially plant no. 3, show extreme variation from one month to another.


7. Dust fired steam boiler plants This technology class contains only dataset from one plant. Until further arrangements has been made with the plant owner, these data will not be published. However preliminary data analysis indicates, that this CHP technology show outstanding performance in electric efficiency, total efficiency, own power consumption, as well as in utilization period and availability.


Appendix 1 List of key figures and information collected from all plants Table 1: Main plant data 1 Full plant name 101 Single word plant name (location) 2 Conditions concerning anonymity of data:

* Indicate what (if any) data is confidential (An example could be that a particular plant wants all data to remain with project partners only. Or that the plant name should not be mentioned with any data, etc.)

3 Details on plant ownership 4 Details on contractor(s) :

* Main contractor * Manufacturer of the plant, boiler, turbine, engine, etc. (main components).

5 Short description of the plant - max. 1500 characters -- for example from the operating manual or from publications / brochures about the plant. The text will be used as an introductory text and should mainly comprise information not given elsewhere in this spreadsheet.

102 "Central" = central production facility, "De-central" = decentralised production facility, "Industrial" = CHP unit in industry

6 Year of commissioning (enter only 1 year) 7 Year of major reconstruction(s), if any. Enter only 1 year. Leave blank if no major reconstructions have

occurred. 8 Technology used for fuel conversion. 9 Technology used for power generation. 10 Free text:

Extra relevant comments or details on both fuel conversion and power generation technology. Details on flue gas condensation should be written here.

11 Free text: Description of peak and back-up boilers, if applicable. Should include capacity, fuel and other relevant details.

12 Plant status. 13 Main biofuel used at plant. 14 Free text containing details on fuels such as:

* Details on the fuel(s) used, eg. %blends, multiple fuels, etc * %biomass or waste mixed with fossil fuel, * Annual consumption (tons) of biomass / waste * Definition of fuel(s) according to national standards * Typical fuel moisture contents * etc.

15 How is the plant controlled, eg.: - by the heat demand - by the electricity demand - by the amount of fuel/waste that has to be disposed of - by ?

16 MWt -- Nominal thermal input capacity of biomass/waste (ie. excluding fossil fuels) 17 MWt -- Total nominal thermal input capacity of plant incl. fossil fuels 18 MWe -- Gross power output at full load in CHP mode 19 MWe -- Net power output at full load in CHP mode 20 MJ/s -- Heat output at full load, including flue gas condenser 21 % -- Nominal electrical efficiency, gross 22 % -- Nominal electrical efficiency, net 23 % -- Nominal overall efficiency, gross 25 Relevant comments to the input and output capacities (MWt, MWe and MJ/s) as well as relevant comments

regarding the quoted efficiencies. Comments on capacities relatated to flue gas condensation is to be included here.

103 Net heat production [MWh/year] as planned


104 Net power production [MWh/year] as planned 105 Own power consumption [MWh/year] as planned 106 Separate heat production from peak and reserve (backup) boiler(s) [MWh/ year] as planned 107 Total biomass input [ton/year] as planned 108 Average (annual basis) biomass heating value given as lower heating value

[MJ/kg] as recieved 109 Total fossil fuel input [MWh/year] as planned (could be calculated from consumption and lower heating value) 110 Water consumption [m³/year] as planned 111 Operational hours per year as planned 26 Comments on fuel storage:

How much can the fuel storage contain, and how many days of operation at full load does it correspond to. 27 m3 (typically in an accumulation tank) 28 hours of full load that the heat storage can meet 29 Usage of heat: 30 Free text information about the heat and power usage:

* Who are the energy consumers ? * How big is the heat market * How many heat / electricity customers * Details on industrial process steam (pressure(s), temperature(s), etc.) * etc

31 % -- the percent of the heat demand in the district heating network that the plant covers 32 District heating network inlet temperature in °C 33 District heating network return temperature °C 34 Details on waste water:

- Is it generated? How much? - How is the waste water treated? - Other relevant details

35 Details on discharge of ash - for landfilling or recycling? Also include other relevant details. 36 Free text with the following information:

* Equivalent full time employees at the plant * How many persons are needed to operate the plant during day ? * How many persons are needed to operate the plant during night ?

Note: Send picture(s) of plant to project management, or to the relevant project partner in the plant home country.

37 Associated text that must be printed when using the picture in publications. Examples: Photo taken by ..., Copyright of …., photo belongs to, references, etc.

38 Electricity sale: * Are the electricity tarifs time dependent (are there fixed periods of the day, where the price is higher, eg peak/low load periods)? *Or is it one fixed price?

39 Information not covered above eg. Refereces/sources of information, other characteristics or distinctive marks of plant, etc.

Table 2: Plant contact details 40 Country 41 Address of plant 42 Plant generic phone number 43 Generic email address for plant 44 Plant homepage 45 Name and title of contact person 46 Contact person phone number 47 Contact person email address 48 Name and title of backup contact person 49 Backup contact person phone number 50 Backup contact person email address Table 3: Further details on technologies table 51 For all plants :

Description of the fuel feeding system 52 For all plants:


Description of the flue gas cleaning devices for eg. SO2, NOx, HCl, dioxin, dust/particles, etc. 53 For STEAM CYCLES only : Steam pressure in bar and temperature in °C for all relevant boilers.

Steam production in tons/hr for all boilers. 54 For STEAM CYCLES only: Details on type, efficiency, etc. 112 For STEAM CYCLES only: number of boiler units 55 STEAM CYCLES only : Details on the turbine 113 STEAM CYCLES only: number of turbine-generator units 56 STEAM CYCLES only : description of cooling system, eg: sea water, cooling tower, etc. 58 STEAM CYCLES only : other relevant information 59 BIOGAS PLANTS only : Details on feedstock 60 BIOGAS PLANTS only : Digester capacity in m3 61 BIOGAS PLANTS only : Residence time in days 62 BIOGAS PLANTS only : Mesophillic/thermophillic process temperature 63 BIOGAS PLANTS only : annual gas production in Nm3 64 BIOGAS PLANTS only : specific gas yield in m3 gas per m3 feedstock 65 BIOGAS PLANTS only : Gas composition and lower heating value 66 BIOGAS PLANTS only : other relevant information 67 LANDFILL GAS PLANTS only: annual gas production in Nm3 68 LANDFILL GAS PLANTS only: Gas composition and lower heating value 114 LANDFILL GAS PLANTS only: Landfill volume (area times avg. depth, in 1000 m3) 69 LANDFILL GAS PLANTS only: other relevant information 70 GASIFICATION PLANTS only: Type of gasifier eg. Pressurized / non pressurized, FB, CFB, updraft, down-

draft, gasification agent(s), etc. 71 GASIFICATION PLANTS only: Gas composition and lower heating value. 72 GASIFICATION PLANTS only: Details on fuel gas cleaning devices:

Type, operating conditions, materials, etc. 73 GASIFICATION PLANTS only: other relevant information not included above. 74 PLANTS WITH GAS ENGINE(S):

- Type, efficiency and other relevant details 115 PLANTS WITH GAS ENGINE(S):

- Number of engines 75 PLANTS NOT INCLUDED ABOVE : Give some of the key figures characteristic to the technology -

corresponding to the examples above. Table 4: Investment details table 76 The total capital cost of the plant in euros 77 Elaboration on total capital cost eg. :

* Cost quoted in XXXX (year) euros * Particular items excluded from cost * Special circumstances * Etc.

78 Details on distribution of costs on main components such as: * Boiler * Steam turbine * Buildings * etc


Appendix 2 List of monthly data collected from all plants in all months Note: KPI = Key Performance Indicator Table 1: Monthly dataset identification (all plants) Full plant name 1 Choose from list 2 Choose from list Table 2: Biogas feedstock (biogas & landfill plants only) 3 Choose a biomass or waste feedstock from list 4 Amount of feedstock used (m3) 5 Choose a biomass or waste feedstock from list 6 Amount of feedstock used (m3) 7 Choose a biomass or waste feedstock from list 8 Amount of feedstock used (m3) 9 Choose a biomass or waste feedstock from list 10 Amount of feedstock used (m3) 11 Choose a biomass or waste feedstock from list 12 Amount of feedstock used (m3) 13 Total amount of biomass used in system (m3) (Change if different to calculated) Table 3: Biogas production (landfill & biogas plants only) 14 Total amount of biogas or landfill produced (m3) 15 Amount of biogas or landfill gas consumed in engine (m3). 201 Lower heating value of biogas/landfill gas in (MJ/m3). If necessary give an estimate - give explanations

in field 18. 16 Electricity produced by engine (MWh) 17 Heat produced by engine (MWh) 18 Details not covered above. Examples could be:

* Details on fuels not including in menu boxes above * Biogas or landfill gas temperature * Gas composition

19 KPI: gas production (m3) / total biomass (m3) Digester capacity in m3, excluding storage tanks (See Key Figures spreadsheet, field no. 60) 20 KPI: Biogas production (m3) / digester capacity (m3) Landfill volume (area times avg. depth, in 1000 m3) (see Key Figures, field no. 113) 202 KPI: Landfill gas production (m3) / landfill volume (1000 m3) Table 4: Biomass fuel consumption (solid fuel plants only) 21 Choose a biomass or waste fuel from list 22 Monthly consumption of fuel 1 (tonnes) (excl. fuel used in back-up and peak units) 23 Lower heating value

(MJ/kg as recieved) 24 Choose a biomass or waste fuel from list 25 Monthly consumption of fuel 2 (tonnes) (excl. fuel used in back-up and peak units) 26 Lower heating value



(MJ/kg as recieved)


33 Choose a biomass or waste fuel from list 34 Monthly consumption of fuel 5 (tonnes) (excl. fuel used in back-up and peak units) 35 Lower heating value

(MJ/kg as recieved) Table 5: Fossil fuel consumption (all plants) 36 Total consumption of coal (tonnes) 37 Lower heating value (MJ/kg) 38 Total consumption of oil given in the unit in field 39 39 Units for oil

(choose from list) 40 Lower heating value (MJ/kg or MJ/Litre -- must match the unit given above) 41 Total gas comsumption (Nm3) 42 Lower heating value (MJ / Nm3) Table 6: Monthly fuels totals - comparison with calculated values 43 KPI: Total monthly biomass/waste/biogas input energy (MWh) 44 Total monthly biomass/waste/biogas input energy

-- change if different to calculated (MWh) 45 KPI: Total monthly fossil fuel thermal input (MWh) 46 Total monthly fossil fuel thermal input

-- change if different to calculated (MWh) 47 KPI: Total fuel thermal input energy (MWh)

= Fossil input + Biomass & Waste input 48 Free text comments to monthly fuel consumption Table 7: Heat balance figures (solid fuels plants only - KPI_6 for all plants) 49 Gross heat production this month (MWh) including steam production (field 52) but excluding usable

heat cooled off (field 53) and excluding heat produced in separate peak and back-up-units (field 54) 50 Net heat production (MWh) 51 Own heat consumption (MWh).. If significant but not meassured - give an estimate -- change if

different to calculated: = field 49 - 50 52 Steam sold for industrial purposes (MWh) 53 Usable heat that is cooled off (eg excess production compared to demand) (MWh) 54 Separate heat production from peak and reserve (backup) boiler(s) (MWh) at the same location as the

CHP unit 55 Free text comments to heat production and consumption. E.g. indicate if flue gas condensor has been

used. 56 KPI: Net heat efficiency (%)

=net heat production (MWh) / fuel input (MWh) Table 8: Power balance figures (solid fuels plants only - KPI_7 and KPI_8 for all plants) 57 Gross power production (MWh) 58 Net power production (MWh) 59 Total own electricity consumption (MWh) - change if different to calculated: = field 57 - 58 60 Free text comments to power production and consumption eg:

* distribution of own power consumption on main components * etc.

61 KPI: Net electrical efficiency (%) = net power production (Wh) / fuel input (Wh) 62 KPI:Total efficiency (%)= [ net power production (Wh) + net heat production (Wh) ] / [ fuel input (Wh) ] 64 KPI: Specific power consumption (%) = [ own power consumption (MWh) / fuel input (MWh) ] 65 KPI: Share of heat production (on peak and back-up boiler plants) (%)

= separate heat production (MWh) / [ separate heat production + gross CHP heat production (MWh) ]

Table 9: Operational performance (all plants) 66 Number of operational hours for the boiler, if applicable 67 Number of operational hours for the turbine, if applicable 68 Number of operational hours for the engine, if applicable 69 Number of operational hours for the gasifier, if applicable 70 Number of stop and starts. Count one for one stop. 71 Hours out of operation (power producing parts) due to revision (hours) 72 Hours (weighted average) out of operation (power producing parts) due to damage and the share of


power being out of operation in this period For example: If the plant can only run on 80% load for 100 hours due to a damamge, then the hours out of operation is calculated as: (1-0,8) * 100 hours = 20 hours

73 Free text comments to operational hours MWe -- Net power output at full load. (See Key Figures spreadsheet, field no. 19) 74 KPI: Utilisation period (hrs) = net power production (Wh) / nominal power capacity (W) 75 KPI: Availability factor (%) = [ 1- (weighted hours of damage + hours of revision) / hours in a month ] *

100% Table 10: Environmental data (all plants) 76 m3 77 Free text 78 m3 79 Tonnes of fly ash and slag discharged 203 Average water content in ash discharge, figure in % 80 Comments relating to ash discharge and waste water generation. Eg:

* info about unburned matter in ash * etc.

81 Type and amount of chemicals used, and description of usage. 82 KPI: Specific water consumption (m3 / GWh) = water consumption (m3) / fuel input (GWh) 83 Stack average CO-value 84 unit 85 Measurement method details, on-line/batch, etc. 86 Stack average O2-level 87 unit 88 Measurement method details, on-line/batch, etc. 92 Particles 93 unit 94 Measurement method details,

on-line/batch, etc. 95 NOx 96 unit 97 Measurement method details,

on-line/batch, etc. 101 SO2 102 unit 103 Measurement method details,

on-line/batch, etc. 119 Comments relating to emissions and environmental figures not included above. Table 11: Comments on the operation (all plants) 120 Important: give comments on operation, including but not limited to:

* Repair jobs * Operating failures * Encountered problems * etc.


a performance study covering 63 european plants...

Documents