Industrial Cogeneration Case Studies

EM-1531
Research Project 1276-1

Final Report, September 1980

Work Completed, April 1980

Prepared by

SYNERGIC RESOURCES CORPORATION

One Bala-Cynwyd Plaza, Suite 630
Bala-Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004

Principal Investigators
D. R. Limaye
S. Isser
B. Hinkle
N. R. Friedman

Prepared for

Electric Power Research Institute

3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304

EPRI Project Manager

R. Mauro
Utilization and Conservation Program
Energy Management and Utilization Division

DISTRIBUTION IF THIS G0CU31FNT IS UNUlUTTQ)

 DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.

D IS C L A IM E R

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image

products. Images are produced from the best available
original document.
 ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to Research Reports Center
(RRC), Box 50490, Palo Alto, CA 94303, (415) 965-4081. There is no charge for reports
requested by EPRI member utilities and affiliates, contributing nonmembers, U.S. utility
associations, U.S. government agencies (federal, state, and local), media, and foreign
organizations with which EPRI has an information exchange agreement. On request,
RRC will send a catalog of EPRI reports.

EPRI authorizes the reproduction and distribution of all or any portion of this report and the preparation
of any derivative work based on this report, in each case on the condition that any such reproduction,
distribution, and preparation shall acknowledge this report and EPRI as the source.

NOTICE
This report was prepared by the organization(s) named below as an account of work sponsored by the
Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI). Neither EPRI, members of EPRI, the organization(s) named
below, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty or representation, express or
implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this
report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not
infringe privately owned rights; or (b) assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages
resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report.
Prepared by
Synergic Resources Corporation
Bala-Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
 ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to perform studies on a number of operating cogen­
eration systems to determine application, economics and attitudes of industrial
and utility executives toward cogeneration. The study was carried out in four
tasks.

In task one, a literature survey was conducted and an identification of candidate

cogeneration sites was carried out. This was followed by a screening of these
sites down to 20-30 candidate sites. The screening was carried out on the basis
of cogeneration capacity, geographical diversity, generation type and industrial
diversity.

In task two, the remaining sites were contacted as to their willingness to work
with EPRI, and an industrial questionnaire was developed on technical, economic
and institutional cogeneration issues. Each of the seventeen sites was visited
during this task.

In task three, the site information was completed and tabulated.

In task four, a utility questionnaire was developed and utilities with cogenera­
tion systems studied in this survey, in their service territory, were contacted
as to their attitudes toward cogeneration. In addition, a compilation of a list
of operating cogeneration systems was performed during this task.

iii
 EPRI PERSPECTIVE

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This is the Phase I report of RP1276, Evaluation of Alternate Technologies for Dual
Energy Use Systems (DEUS). The remaining phases of this work are a systems analysis
of DEUS and four conceptual designs for DEUS in various industries. The project
will be completed in 1983. The initial contractor for this survey, TRW, Inc., ran
into difficulty securing information on the 17 sites surveyed. Synergic Resources
Corporation was then asked to complete the project. The work on the phase included:

1. Reviewing the recent literature on cogeneration

2. Obtaining detailed information on 17 existing industrial cogeneration

sites

3. Obtaining utility attitudes and concerns about cogeneration

4. Compiling a list of known-existing cogenerating systems

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The overall objectives of the project are to:

• Develop a methodology to assess DEUS options, giving explicit

considerations to utility perspectives

• Identify promising DEUS candidates

• Identify research and development needs and priorities for DEUS

The objective of this first phase is to conduct a survey to assess current

practices, equipment, and attitudes with regard to DEUS. This survey sought to
obtain geographical, industry, and system diversity in the case studies considered.

PROJECT RESULTS

A great deal of information on DEUS systems not available elsewhere was integrated
into this report. An understanding of utility attitudes toward cogeneration, and
the reasons for those attitudes, is also included. While not complete, this report
probably contains the most comprehensive listing available of verified-operating

v
cogeneration systems in the U.S* This information base will be added to over the
next three years. The information obtained will be used as the state-of-the-art
assessment for cogeneration activities in the succeeding phases of the project.

Robert L. Mauro, Project Manager

Energy Management and Utilization Division

vi
 CONTENTS

Section Page

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
Project Overview 1-1
Objectives of Cogeneration Survey 1-2
Previous Studies of Industrial Cogeneration 1-2
Utility Activities Related to Industrial Cogeneration 1-6
EPRI Activities Related to Cogeneration 1-8
References 1-10

2 SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION CASE STUDY RESULTS 2-1

Introduction 2-1
Criteria for Selection of Case Study Candidates 2-1
Summary of Data from Case Studies 2-2
Age 2-2
Size 2-2
Utility Interface 2-8
System Design 2-8
Efficiency 2-9
Operating Mode 2-9
Heat Rate 2-9
Reliability 2-11
Fuel Costs 2-11
Limitations 2-12
Two Recently Installed Cogeneration Systems 2-13
Detailed Information of Cogeneration SystemsSurveyed 2-16

3 UTILITY PERSPECTIVES 3-1

Background 3-1
Utilities Surveyed 3-2
Utility Concerns Regarding Cogeneration 3-4
Reliability and Maintenance 3-5
Safety of Utility Equipment and Personnel 3-7

vii
 CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Page

3 UTILITY PERSPECTIVES (Continued)

Loss of Customers 3-7
DEUS Ownership 3-7
Rates for DEUS 3-8
Summary 3-9

4 COGENERATION CASE STUDY DATA 4-1

American Enka Company 4-2
Anheuser Busch, Inc. 4-5
Bowater Southern Paper Corporation 4-8
(A Paper Company in Pennsylvania) 4-11
General Foods Corporation 4-14
Gulf States Utility Company 4-17
Holly Sugar Corporation 4-20
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 4-23
Potlatch Corporation 4-26
Riverside Cement Company 4-29
St. Regis Paper 4-32
Shell Oil Company 4-35
Celanese Chemical Company/Southwestern Public Service Company 4-38
Phillips Petroleum Company/Southwestern Public Service Company 4-41
Southern California Edison 4-44
Stauffer Chemical Company 4-47
Union Carbide Corporation 4-50

5 STATISTICAL DATA ON COGENERATION 5-1

Inventory of Cogeneration Facilities 5-1
Data on Industrial Generation 5-1
Power Purchases by Utilities from Industrial Generators 5-8
Distribution of Electricity/Steam Use Ratio for Industrial
Plants 5-8
Use of Process Residuals for Cogeneration 5-19

viii
 ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1- 1 Conceptual Overview of Study Approach 1- 9

2- 1 Location of Cogenerators Surveyed 2- 4

2-2 Illustration of Net Heat Rate Calculation for Steam Turbine

Topping 2-10

TABLES

Table Page

2-1 List of Cogeneration Systems Studied 2-3

2-2 Characteristics of Cogeneration Systems Studied 2-5

2-3 Cogenerators and Utilities Fuel Use 2-12

2- 4 Comparison of Two New (1979) Cogeneration Systems 2-14

3- 1 General Utility Data and Attitude Toward Cogeneration 3-3

5-1 Inventory of Known Cogenerators 5-2

5-2 List of Natural Gas Using Cogenerators Filing for Cogeneration

Exemption to FERC 5-7

5-3 Industrial Generation by Region and Type of Generation

Equipment (1978) 5-9

5-4 Industrial Generating Capacity by SIC Code 5-10

5-5 Purchases of Power by Privately Owned Utilities from

Industrial Generation 5-11

5-6 Distribution of Steam and Electricity Use in Industrial Plants 5-18

5-7 Process Residuals Used for Steam Generation in 1976 5-18

ix
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Cogeneration is receiving increasing publicity and is frequently mentioned as an

important energy conservation measure. Cogeneration has been the subject of
many recent studies, which have addressed the policy issues related to cogenera­
tion from a national perspective. However, there is some ambiguity and a lack of
adequate understanding regarding some of the complex technical, economic and
institutional issues related to cogeneration. This report describes the results
of case studies of 17 existing industrial cogeneration facilities. The case
studies were performed as part of a project sponsored by the Electric Power
Research Institute for the Evaluation of Dual Energy Use Systems (DEUS).

THE EPRI DEUS PROJECT

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducted a Dual Energy Use Systems
Workshop in September 1977 to develop information useful to utilities, process
industries, and others concerned with the problems and prospects of DEUS. One of
the findings of the Workshop was:

"Although much has been written on the various applications, such as

cogeneration and district heating, not enough site-specific information
is available to provide a basis for an accurate estimate of the real
potential for this concept."

EPRI has initiated a program for the Evaluation of Dual Energy Systems Applica­
tions. This program addresses both industrial cogeneration and district heating,
and its overall objectives are to:

• Develop a methodology to assess DEUS options, giving explicit

consideration to utility perspectives.

• Identify promising DEUS candidates.

• Identify research and development needs and priorities.

ES-1
The first step in the EPRI DEUS program is to assess the current status of DEUS in
the United States. The first two tasks of the program consist of surveys and case
studies of industrial cogeneration and district heating systems.

OBJECTIVES OF COGENERATION CASE STUDIES

The principal objective of the case studies of industrial cogeneration described in

this report was to identify and describe the major technical, economic and institu­
tional aspects of existing industrial cogeneration systems. The factors addressed
include the types of cogeneration systems and components, relative thermal and
electric output of cogeneration systems, capital investments, operating and main­
tenance costs, fuel costs, institutional arrangements for ownership and operation,
interaction with local electric utility, etc.

Another important objective was to develop an understanding of the perspective of

electric utilities towards industrial cogeneration. In particular, the study
attempted to identify the utility attitudes and concerns regarding the advantages
and disadvantages of cogeneration, requirements and terms which would make cogenera­
tion attractive, and perceived problems.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CASE STUDY CANDIDATES

The cogeneration systems studied in this project were selected after a formal
screening process. An initial list of cogenerators was prepared by TRW Inc. for
EPRI under a separate contract. Because of the difficulties in obtaining data from
some of the selected candidates. Synergic Resources Corporation performed a second
screening to add a number of case study sites and to develop additional information
on the initially identified sites.

In order to be selected as a case study candidate, the cogeneration system had to

satisfy the following requirements:

• Currently operational.

• At least one year old.

• Electrical capacity of greater than 5 MW (preferably greater than

10 MW).

• Operational for at least 8 hours per day.

• Currently providing both electrical and thermal energy.

ES-2
 • In the industrial sector, preferably in the energy-intensive
manufacturing industries.

• Willing to cooperate and provide data.

In addition, the candidates as a group were selected to represent a diversity of

• Prime movers/thermodynamic cycles.

• Utility interface.

• Primary fuels.

• Ownership.

• Industrial groups (SIC).

• Geographic location.

A list of the selected case study candidates is given below:

1. American Enka Company - Lowland, TN.

2. Anheuser Busch, Inc., - St. Louis, MO.

3. Bowater Southern Paper Corp. - Calhoun, TN.

4. (Name Withheld)* - Pennsylvania.

5. General Foods Corporation - Woburn, MA.

6. Gulf States Utility Company - Baton Rouge, LA.

7. Holly Sugar Corporation - Brawley, CA.

8. Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Avon, CA.

9. Potlatch Corporation - Lewiston, ID.

10. Riverside Cement Company - Oro Grande, CA.

11. St. Regis Paper - Houston, TX.

12. Shell Oil Company - Deerpark, TX.

13. Celanese Chemical Co./Southwestern Public Service Co. - Pampa, TX.

14. Phillips Petroleum Co./Southwestern Public Service Co. - Borger, TX.

15. Southern California Edison - Pomona, CA.

16. Stauffer Chemical Company - Henderson, NV.

17. Union Carbide Corporation - Texas City, TX.

*Due to confidentiality restrictions, the name of this company cannot be disclosed

ES-3
SUMMARY OF CASE STUDY RESULTS

The cogeneration systems described in this report offer a diversity of age, size,
efficiency, type of equipment, thermal-electric load ratio, fuel used, fuel cost,
utility interface, and economic performance. Since cogeneration systems are
designed for the industrial facility which they serve, it is not surprising that
they tend to be unique. The one common quality they show is the ability to
generate electricity more efficiently than is possible for a utility power plant
by utilizing energy which would be wasted during conventional generation.

Table ES-1 summarizes the characteristics of the 17 cogeneration systems studied.

UTILITY PERSPECTIVES

A survey of 11 utilities was conducted to obtain an understanding of their

perspective on industrial cogeneration. (Some of the utility surveys were
initially conducted by TRW Inc.) These utilities shared with us the top level
management attitudes and opinions which determine company policy in these matters.
The survey examined:

• General Operating Characteristics of the Utility, e.g., generating

capacity, fuels used, expansion plans, etc.

• Current Involvement with Cogeneration, i.e., number of cogenera­

tion plants in service area, industrial or utility ownership, and
involvement in the assessment of additional facilities.

• Specific Utility Policy Toward Cogeneration, such as the existence•

of rate structures or tariffs for standby service to cogeneration
plants and/or purchase of excess power from cogenerators, etc.

• Overall Attitude and Policy toward cogeneration in each utility's

service area.

Table ES-2 shows some of the general data on the utilities surveyed, including
each utility's primary fuel(s), its projected growth rate through 1990, and the
percentage of its kilowatt-hour sales which is represented by purchased power.
These data are useful in assessing the utility fuels which would be displaced by
additional cogeneration facilities. This is particularly relevant to the nation
in terms of reducing our dependence on imported oil and limited resources such as
natural gas, and to potential cogenerators considering sale of excess power to a
utility. In the past, if a cogenerator was using an expensive fuel, such as oil
or gas, the utility may have been able to generate power cheaper (using coal,
nuclear, or hydro), or to buy power from a pool more cheaply than from a

ES-4
 Table ES-1

CHARACTERISTICS OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 )0

NAME OF FIRM ANNUAL 1979 ELEC.

YEAR YEAR ELECTRIC 1979 FUEL
ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM OPERATIONS FUELS PURCHASE
COGENERATION LAST CAPACITY COST
GENERATION RELATIONS a TYPEb MODE* USED COST
BEGAN EXPANSION (MW) ($/10 Btu)
(Million KWH) (C/KWH)

AMERICAN ENKA 1947 1960 20 Thermal,

88 PO STT Coal 1.44 2.4
Electric

ANHEUSER BUSCH 1929 1951 27.6 72 PO STT Thermal Coal, NG 2.25 NA

BOWATER SOUTHERN 1954 45 Wood wastes,

- 378 GI STT Thermal 1.00 2.5
Oil, NG

(NAME WITHHELD) 1934 1948 11 65 PO STT Thermal Oil 2.40 NA

GENERAL FOODS 1978 -- 7.5 26 GI STT Thermal NG 2.50 3.8

GULF STATES NG, Refinery

1930 1954 190 1,078 GI STT Thermal 2.60 -
UTILITY COMPANY Gas
ES-

HOLLY SUGAR 1949 1978 7.5 16 I STT Electric NG 2.40 NA

PACIFIC GAS NG, Refinery Propri­

1939 -- 50 209 GI STT Thermal -
& ELECTRIC Gas etary

POTLATCH 1951 1977 20 NG, Black

102 PO STT Thermal 1.20 0.8
Liquor

RIVERSIDE CEMENT 1954 15 126 GI Waste heat.

- STB Electric (d) 3.75
Oil

ST. REGIS 1967 Combined NG,

- 95 557 GI Thermal 1.15 2.3
Cycle Wood waste

SHELL OIL 1941 1979 Thermal, Refinery

60 342 PO STT, GT 2.40 2.2
Electric Gas, NG

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/
1979 - 30 189 GI STT Electric Coal 1.20 3.0
CELANESEC

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/
PHILLIPS 1966 - 33 NA GI GT Electric NG 2.40 3.0

SOUTHERN Electric, Propri­

1960 -- 14.5 78 GI GT NG, Oil -
CALIFORNIA EDISON Thermal etary

STAUFFER CHEMICAL 1968 27 Combined

- 180 PO Thermal NG 2.70 2.9
Cycle

UNION CARBIDE 1941 1967 70 386 PO STT, GT Thermal NG 2.50 2.8

See Footnotes at end of Table.

 Table ES-1 (Continued)

CHARACTERISTICS OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

1 1 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20

NAME OF FIRM ALPHA NET DEMAND MET BY

UNSCHEDULED FUEL COST FUEL COST
CAPACITY SYSTEM VALUE HEAT COGENERATION (%) AVAILABILITY
THERMAL
FACTOR EFFICIENCY Btu(e)/ RATE (%) (hrs/yr) ($/106 Btu)* (C/KWH)®
Btu(t)® Btu/KWH THERMAL ELECTRICAL

AMERICAN ENKA 0.50 0.62 0.14 6,430 100 23 99.9 0 2.45 0.9

ANHEUSER BUSCH 0.30 0.77 0.11 5,600 100 41 99.9 0 2.86 1.3

BCWATER SOUTHERN 0.96 0.55 0.27 11,190* 82 39 99+ 0 1.43 1.1

(NAME WITHHELD) 0.67 0.76 0.12 5,750 100 71 99.9 0 3.06 1.4

GENERAL FOODS 0.40 0.73 0.15 7,650 62 100 85 0 3.16 1.8

GULF STATES
0.65 0.73 0.17 5,830 -- - 99.9 1 3.43 1.5
UTILITY COMPANY
ES-

HOLLY SUGAR 0.24 0.70 0.10 7,550 73 100 99.9 0 3.32 1.9

PACIFIC GAS 0.46 9,100

0.47 0.60 -- - 99.9 NA -- -
& ELECTRIC

POTLATCH 0.58 0.64 0.03 5,700 82 23 95+ NA 1.86 0.7

RIVERSIDE CEMENT 0.96 (h) (h) ll,320h 0 87 99.9 NA (d) (d)

ST. REGIS 0.67 0.67 0.21 5,200 100 NA 99+ 48 1.72 0.6

SHELL OIL 0.65 0.76 0.07 4,500 NA 21 99.7 0 3.15 1.1

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/
NA 0.67 0.07 4,800 NA NA NA NA 1.80 0.6
CELANESEC

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/ 1.7

NA 0.70 0.48 7,030 NA NA 99.9 0 -
PHILLIPS

SOUTHERN
0.61 0.65 0.34 6,630 - -- 94 NA - -
CALIFORNIA EDISON

STAUFFER CHEMICAL 0.76 0.74 0.30 5,050 100 50 98 NA 3.51 1.4

UNION CARBIDE 0.63 0.68 0.08 6,600 100 100 99.9 NA 3.60 1.7

See Footnotes on the following page.

 Table ES-1 (Concluded)

CHARACTERISTICS OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

FOOTNOTES

o Utility Relations:
I - Isolated
PO - Parallel Operation
GI - Grid Interconnected

b STT Steam turbine topping cycle

STB Steam turbine bottoming cycle
GT Gas turbine topping cycle
STT, GT Steam turbine and gas turbine operating in parallel
CC Combined cycle, gas turbine exhaust used to produce steam for
steam turbine

c Celanese numbers have been estimated from numbers given by utility.

d Riverside Cement utilizes waste heat — no price could be assigned since

the waste heat is a byproduct of the kiln process. The value of the
input fuel is fully utilized in the kiln.

• Alpha value is the ratio of the Btu value of electricity generated to

the Btu content of steam produced for process.

f Fuel Cost Thermal is the cost of the fuel needed per million Btu of
process steam.

g Fuel Cost Electric is the cost of the fuel needed per million Btu of
process steam.

h Riverside is bottoming cycle — steam efficiency and alpha value not

applicable. Heat rate is high because of bottoming cycle operation.

i Facility is operated to follow either thermal or electric loads, or some

combination of both.

j The unusually high heat rate for Bowater Southern is due to the combina­
tion of combustion of low efficiency fuels (black liquor, wood wastes)
and the use of the condensing mode of some turbines to generate
additional electricity.

ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS

NA - Not Available.
NG - Natural Gas.

ES-7
 Table ES-2

GENERAL UTILITY DATA AND ATTITUDE TOWARD COGENERATION

Projected Preferred
Power Generation % of KWH No. of
Avg. Annual Ownership: Overall Attitude
Utility By Fuel Type, Sales Existing
Growth I=Industry Toward Cogeneration
Thousand MWH (1978) Purchased Cogenerators
Thru 1990 U=Utility

Alabama Power Coal 18,658 Not 17 19 Not Does not promote cogeneration
Company Nuclear 5,920 available available
Hydro 3,139 (positive)
Oil & Gas Negligible

Baltimore Gas Nuclear 9,702 Not Not 3 I Receptive to cogeneration

& Electric Coal 3,719 available available proposals; does not promote;
Oil/Steam 1,940 (positive) (believed has established power
Hydro 647 to be purchase rates.
Gas & Oil 162 small)

Boston Edison Oil 8,733 3.9% 5 More I Receptive to cogeneration

(1977 Data) Nuclear 2,652 than proposals but does not
Gas 3 2 actively promote.

Oomnonve al th Nuclear 30,600 4.2% 3 10-12 I or U Large nuclear £ coal base

Edison Coal 27,200 provides low cost power which
Gas 4,500 cogenerators must compete
with

Delmarva Power Oil 3,987 5.0% 1 1 U Receptive to cogeneration

S Ught (1977 Coal 1,957 proposals but no opportuni-
Data) Nuclear 1,305 ties in service area

New England Coal 11,116 2.8% 12 1 I or U Receptive to cogeneration

Power Service Hydro 1,597 proposals; does not promote
(1977 Data) .Pumped
[Subsidiary of Storage
New England Hydro 95
Electric Gas £ Oil 37
System]

Pacific Gas & Oil £ Gas 30,500 3.5% 24 20 U Actively promoting cogenera-
Electric Hydro 13,480 tion via favorable rate
Geothermal 2,970 structures

Pennsylvania Coal 24,167 2.5-4% Sales to 6-9 I Actively promoting cogenera-

Power £ Oil/Steam 6,426 power poo] tion in order to defer power
Light Hydro 13,480 exceed plant construction
Gas t Oil 106 5 times
purchases

Philadelphia Nuclear 7,769 2.5% 23 12 I or U Receptive to cogeneration

Electric Oil 7,174 proposals; does not promote
Coal 6,690
Hydro 1,700

Southern Oil 27,369 3.5% 17 2 I Actively promoting cogenera-

California Gas 11,187 tion via favorable rate
Edison Coal 6,501 structures
Hydro 5,888
Nuclear 2,127

Tennessee Coal 77,939 2-4% 5 6 I Actively promoting cogenera-

Valley Hydro 20,694 tion in order to defer power
Authority Nuclear 15,795 plant construction
Oil £ Gas 2,940

ES-8
cogenerator. Under these conditions, the utility would have been unwilling to
buy power from the cogenerator. However, if by-product fuels, wood, or coal were
used in cogeneration, or if a utility depended heavily on oil and gas generated
power, cogenerators found utilities very willing to buy their excess power.

UTILITY CONCERNS REGARDING COGENERATION

All of the utilities surveyed, independent of their overall attitude, expressed

some concerns about involvement with DEUS operations. These concerns are in a
variety of areas, including:

• Reliability and maintenance of DEUS and the effects on the utility

and its customers.

• Safety of interconnection equipment and utility personnel.

• Loss of customers and erosion of the utility's base load.

• Availability of buy-back power from industrial DEUS.

• Requirement for back-up capacity.

• Development of equitable rates from the viewpoints of the utility,

its customers and the cogenerator.

In general, the utilities participating in the survey would all strongly favor
DEUS in their service area if there was no reliability or safety question, if
DEUS could be firm suppliers of power at a rate which would save the utility
money, if they could gain exemptions from NEA to burn oil or gas, or get
exemptions from emission standards to burn coal, and if there was no significant
reduction of the utility's sales due to conversions to DEUS. In the absence of
this utopian scenario, some utilities still have favorable attitudes toward
cogeneration (DEUS), though they and others, whose attitudes are less favorable,
have legitimate concerns.

CONTINUING EFFORTS

Additional case studies of industrial cogeneration are currently being performed

by DOE. Information from the case studies reported here, the DOE efforts, and
other secondary data sources is being compiled in a Cogeneration Data Base for
EPRI. The secondary sources examined include:

• FERC Form 1 where utilities report power purchased from industrial

generators.•

• FERC Form 4 in which industrial generators report type of genera­

tion, capacity and monthly generation.

ES-9
 • FERC Form 12 which report for a small number of industrial
generators detailed information on the generation facility.

• Filings by cogenerators to FERC for exemptions from incremental

pricing.

• Other published data.

The Cogeneration Data Base is expected to be a continuing effort. Some informa­

tion on existing cogenerators is presented in Section 5 of this report.

Subsequent tasks of the EPRI DEUS program include:

• Analysis of cogeneration systems for specific applications.

• Development and evaluation of alternative conceptual designs for

cogeneration, including system characteristics and subsystem
requirements.

• Assessment of market potential, including an evaluation of how

cogeneration systems could fit into a utility's optimum capacity
expansion plan.

• Ranking and prioritization of cogeneration concepts.

• Assessment of future research, development and demonstration needs.

ES-10
 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Dual Energy Use Systems (DEUS) refer to methods for using electric and thermal
energy from a common source when the two forms of energy are produced simultane­
ously and in significant quantities. Because of the increasing interest in
conservation and efficient utilization of resources, dual energy use systems are
receiving a great deal of attention today. While substantial research, develop­
ment and demonstration activities are currently underway, DEUS -remains a complex
issue and much more information regarding technical, economic and institutional
aspects of DEUS needs to be developed.

EPRI conducted a Dual Energy Use Systems Workshop in September, 1977, to develop
information useful to utilities, process industries, and others concerned with the
problems and prospects of DEUS. One of the findings of the Workshop was:

"Although much has been written on the various applications, such as

cogeneration and district heating, not enough site-specific informa­
tion is available to provide a basis for an accurate estimate of the
real potential for this concept" (1).

EPRI is now undertaking a two-pronged program to evaluate the potential for DEUS
applications for industrial cogeneration and district heating systems (2_) . This
program addresses industrial cogeneration and district heating, and its objectives
are to:

• Develop a methodology to assess DEUS options, giving explicit

consideration to utility perspectives.

• Identify promising DEUS candidates.

• Identify research and development needs and priorities.

The first step in the EPRI DEUS program is to assess the current status of DEUS in
the United States. The first two tasks of the program consist of surveys and case
studies of industrial cogeneration and district heating systems. This report
describes the results of the survey of industrial cogeneration.

1-1
OBJECTIVES OF COGENERATION SURVEY

The principal objective of the survey of industrial cogeneration described in this

study was to identify and describe the major technical, economic and institutional
aspects of existing industrial cogeneration systems. The factors addressed
include the types of cogeneration systems and components, relative thermal and
electric output of cogeneration systems, capital investments, operating and
maintenance costs, fuel costs, institutional arrangements for ownership and
operation, interaction with local electric utility, etc.

Another important objective was to develop an understanding of the perspective of

electric utilities towards industrial cogeneration. In particular, the study
attempted to identify the utility attitudes and concerns regarding the advantages
and disadvantages of cogeneration, requirements and terms which would make
cogeneration attractive, and perceived problems.

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION

The advantages of simultaneous generation of electrical or mechanical power and

thermal energy for industrial use from the same primary energy source have long
been recognized as a method for increasing fuel utilization efficiency. In the
early 1900's, in-plant generation of electricity was common. However, after
1920, the development of large central station generation, together with
inexpensive and readily available fuels, led to the availability of reliable and
cheap electricity for industrial consumers. As a result of this, the cogeneration
of electricity in the industrial sector declined with only a few major energy
intensive industries involved in significant amounts of cogeneration.

In the last decade, the energy situation in this country has undergone a signifi­
cant transition. Increasing prices and declining availability of primary energy
sources, environmental constraints with the siting of power plants and the
combustion of coal, and rapidly increasing costs of electrical generation, have
all led to a substantial interest in the increased efficiency of fuel utilization
in industry. The evaluation of the potential of cogeneration in industry has been
the subject of many recent efforts undertaken by the Federal government, state
governments, electric utilities, and industrial users. A summary of some of the
more significant recent studies of industrial cogeneration is provided below.

1-2
The first major recent evaluation of cogeneration was performed by the Dow
Chemical Company in its Industrial Energy Center Study (3_) . This study evaluated
the potential for industrial cogeneration, as well as the legal and institutional
barriers to its use. The study investigated both industrial and central station
cogeneration, but examined only steam turbine topping as the cogeneration option.
The data used in this study for evaluating industrial steam requirements were
based on the Stanford Research Institute's study of energy consumption patterns (4_)
which appears to have overestimated industrial steam requirements. The Dow study
did not attempt to estimate the extent to which institutional problems will
inhibit cogeneration. Thermo-Electron Company performed a detailed evaluation of
in-plant generation in the paper, chemicals and petroleum industries (_5) which
represent a substantial portion of total industrial steam use. The Thermo-
Electron study estimated the maximum technological potential for in-plant
electricity generation for each of these three industries using both topping and
bottoming cycles. This study assumed that all industrial steam has potential for
cogeneration and that the technological maximum electrical generation is
determined only by the temperature and pressure required in the process steam
output. As a result, the study estimates of potential cogeneration are
excessively high. A more recent report by Thermo-Electron (6j attempts to
estimate the feasible level of industrial cogeneration using some of the results
from the earlier study. This second study reports an estimated fuel saving of
1.5 quads and electrical generation of 42,800 MW in 1985.*

A comprehensive investigation of the potential for industrial cogeneration was

conducted by Resource Planning Associates (7_) . This study addressed six major
industries: chemicals, paper, petroleum refining, steel, food, and textiles.
Three primary modes of cogeneration (steam turbine, gas turbine and diesel
engines) were evaluated. A major contribution of the Resource Planning Associates
(RPA) study was the evaluation of the portion of total steam use in industry
considered "unsuitable" for cogeneration. Based on intensive discussions with
more than 50 industrial firms, RPA concluded that approximately 46 percent of the
steam used in the six industries was technically unsuitable for industrial
cogeneration. Additional investigations were also conducted to evaluate the
economic attractiveness of industrial cogeneration using estimates of the return
on investment required by each industry. The RPA analysis projected a minimum
energy saving estimate of 0.5 quads in 1985, with a maximum saving with strong
Government incentives of 0.9 quads for the six industries examined.

*1 quad = 1015 Btu (quadrillion Btu) = 293 billion kWh.

1-3
As part of the comprehensive assessment of the U.S. energy situation from 1985 to
2010, the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES) of the
National Academy of Sciences assembled an industry resource group to identify and
evaluate industrial energy conservation options. This group examined industrial
cogeneration as one of the major conservation activities and concluded that the
expected implementation of cogeneration would be 30 to 40 percent of the maximum
technological potential (8). The expected annual fuel savings of cogeneration
under several alternative scenarios regarding economic growth and future energy
prices were lower than the earlier studies conducted by Dow, Thermo-Electron, and
RPA. A comparative evaluation of these studies was recently published by Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (9)'. This evaluation concluded that there were significant
problems which would limit the potential for cogeneration and that "the energy
savings potential projected for cogeneration is largely dependent on the optimism
of the forecaster with respect to the tractability of the problems involved" (9).

The Federal government has been actively involved in studying and promoting
cogeneration in the last several years. Starting with the early efforts of the
Federal Energy Administration and the Energy Research and Development Administra­
tion, the Federal involvement with cogeneration has expanded significantly since
the formation of the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE has established a research,
development and demonstration program to accomplish its objective of improving
energy efficiency and conservation in the industrial sector. In cooperation with
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), DOE has recently
completed the Cogeneration Technology Alternatives Study (CTAS) which evaluated
current and emerging technological options for cogeneration. The objectives of
CTAS were to identify and evaluate the most attractive advanced conversion systems
for implementation in industrial cogeneration in the 1985 to 2000 time period
using coal or coal-derived fuels. The CTAS effort concluded that the most
attractive advanced energy conversion systems are steam turbines with fluidized
bed combustion of coal, and gas turbines and combined cycles with the use of coal-
derived liquid fuels (10).

The Department of Energy is also sponsoring two other programs in the industrial
cogeneration area. The first one of these is the Industrial Cogeneration
Optimization Program (11) to characterize five major energy-intensive industries
relative to energy use patterns and to select optimum cogeneration system con­
cepts for one or more of these industries. The second program is the Industry

1-4
Evaluation and Demonstration of Cogeneration Systems (1_2). The objectives of this
program are to provide near term, highly visible and original cogeneration system
evaluations and demonstrations to increase industry's interest in cogeneration and
to expedite technology transfer. Another objective of this program is to provide
industry and DOE with first-hand experience in dealing with institutional and
economic impediments to industrial cogeneration.

Another significant study sponsored by DOE included an evaluation of cogeneration

from industrial waste heat. This study, conducted by Drexel University, developed
a large data base on industrial process level energy consumption patterns at the
four-digit SIC level and investigated current and emerging technologies for waste
heat recovery (13).

The DOE also assembled a task force to study cogeneration commercialization. This
task force concluded that:

• Cogeneration is a state-of-the-art technology.

• Cogeneration will grow significantly in the 1980's without

government incentives.

• Cogeneration could provide double the electric power with

government incentives as opposed to without incentives.

• Cogeneration could account for 33,000 to 115,000 MW capacity

under different demand scenarios by 1990.

DOE also sponsored a number of special meetings with industry and environmental
representatives in 1978 to solicit their views on commercialization strategies
from the government's perspective. The meetings were coordinated by four separate
contractors who submitted independent reports. It is interesting to note that the
contractors reported these findings (14):

■ DOE can do little to alter the future cogeneration development

potential.

• Proposed government actions are unwarranted and unrealistic.

• The National Energy Act offers only modest potential for increased
cogeneration development.

• Cogeneration demonstrations are expensive and unnecessary.

In addition to the above government-sponsored studies of cogeneration, there have

been numerous site-specific industrial studies performed by individual firms

1-5
attempting to investigate the feasibility of cogeneration (such as Reference 15)
and site-specific studies performed by other organizations (such as the study for
12 plants in California conducted by Jet Propulsion Lab described in Reference 16).
The evaluation of cogeneration potential has also been the subject of studies by
state agencies in Missouri (17) , Illinois (18), Massachusetts (19) , and
Minnesota (20). The Bonneville Power Administration has completed an evaluation
of the potential for cogeneration in the three states of Washington, Oregon and
Idaho (21). Most of these studies have looked at cogeneration from the industry
perspective and have identified numerous benefits as well as limitations of
industrial cogeneration.

UTILITY ACTIVITIES RELATED TO INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION

In the last several years there has been an increased awareness and interest on
the part of the electric utility industry in cogeneration programs. Some of the
recent activities of three major electric utilities are summarized below.

Southern California Edison (SCE) has long been active in the field of cogeneration.
SCE has viewed cogeneration as an opportunity for conservation and load management
and has actively sought and developed cogeneration potential in their service
territory. The California Energy Commission has recently set a goal requiring
that 10 percent of all electric energy generated in the state be from cogeneration
by 1990. The Commission has required all the utilities in the state to develop
new rate schedules for service to cogenerators and for purchase of power from
cogenerators. In response to this, SCE has identified 612 MW of cogeneration
potential in their service territory. A number of feasibility studies are
currently underway and it is estimated that 25 percent of the identified potential
can be developed by 1990. SCE has set its own goal for developing cogeneration on
their system as 5 percent of their total generation in 1990.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has recently completed a preliminary assess­
ment of the potential for cogeneration in their service area over the next 20
years (22)■ The principal findings and conclusions of the TVA study are:

• The current industrial cogeneration in the TVA region is about

120 MW. A reasonably aggressive program to expand cogeneration
cou3d result in a total capacity increase of 1,865 MW over the
next 20 years. This amount of cogeneration would contribute
1,500 MW to the peak capacity, reduce the system energy require­
ments by 4 percent, and provide a net fuel use reduction of
approximately 2 percent in the TVA region.

1-6
 • The best near-term cogeneration potential is in the pulp and paper
and chemical industries.

• The potential for increasing steam capacity at existing TVA units

is limited. Also, because of the low annual capacity factors, it
is not feasible to produce process steam at TVA combustion turbine
installations.

• New technologies which are likely to contribute to cogeneration

potential are atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC) and fuel
cells. Early commercial availability of these technologies could
significantly increase the contribution from emerging technologies
to future cogeneration.

• A number of significant barriers exist to increased cogeneration

development. A program for overcoming these barriers has been
identified by TVA.

Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) of New Jersey has completed an
assessment of cogeneration potential using utility-owned oil-fired combustion
turbine installations for industrial customers using 100,000 pounds per hour or
more of process steam (23). This study was performed in response to two other
studies of industrial cogeneration potential in New Jersey prepared by the Center
for Environmental Studies at Princeton University (24) and the Public Interest
Research Group (25). These two studies had used survey data and theoretical
assumptions to estimate the total cogeneration potential in New Jersey at approxi­
mately 5,000 to 8,000 megawatts. The PSE&G study was based on site-specific
evaluations of its industrial customers and concluded that only 18 customers
represented a potential for cogeneration amounting to a total of only 430 MW.
Other conclusions of the PSE&G study include:

• Cogeneration is not an economic alternative to nuclear capacity

involving a present worth penalty of about $400 million for 430 MW.

• Of the 18 customers identified, only 12 may have the potential for

providing cogeneration as an economic electric capacity addition
to the utility system.

• Cogeneration using combustion turbines would increase the depen­

dence on oil.

The significant difference between the PSE&G estimates and the other studies
illustrates the importance of site-specific analysis for cogeneration.

1-7
EPRI ACTIVITIES RELATED TO COGENERATION

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has also been actively involved in
several recent efforts related to cogeneration. In 1977, EPRI conducted the Dual
Energy Use Systems (DEUS) Workshop in Yarmouth, Maine, to develop useful informa­
tion for utilities, industries and others concerned with the problems of and
potential for DEUS. Some of the significant conclusions of the participants at
this workshop were:

• Technical and economic aspects of DEUS are site-specific.

Generalizing about potential benefits and other points is not
productive.

• Demonstration projects are needed.

• Utilities need to play an active role to insure the success of

DEUS projects.

• Development of the capability for using solid fuels in an

economically viable but environmentally acceptable way is needed
to avoid increased use of scarce fuels for cogeneration systems.

Since the DEUS workshop, EPRI has completed two other projects related to cogenera­
tion. One of these, sponsored by EPRI1s Energy Demand Program, led to the develop­
ment of an econometric model for forecasting in-plant electric generation in the
industrial sector (26). The second one, sponsored by the Fuel Cell Program,
evaluated the potential for Dual Energy Use Systems using fuel cells (27).

In 1979, EPRI initiated this Evaluation of Dual Energy Use Systems Applications,
specifically to address some of the issues raised at the DEUS Workshop. A
conceptual overview of the overall study approach in this project is shown in
Figure 1-1. The program addresses both industrial cogeneration and district
heating. The first step in this program is an understanding of the techno-
economic and institutional factors affecting the success of DEUS. The first two
tasks are aimed at accomplishing this objective and consist of surveys and case
studies of industrial cogeneration and district heating. Subsequent tasks include:

• Analysis of cogeneration systems.

• Development and evaluation of alternative conceptual designs for

cogeneration including systems characteristics and subsystems
requirements.

Assessment of market potential including an evaluation of how

cogeneration systems would fit into the utility's optimum
capacity expansion plan.

1-8
 Demand Patterns SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Fuel Avail./Prices APPLICATION
Location DEFINITION
Growth Charact.

ASSESS CANDIDATE
MARKET RD&D
Institutional RANKING
POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT
Aspects SYSTEM

SYSTEM
Operational
REQMTS.
Characteristics
DEFINITION

H
I SURVEY Conservation
KD

SYSTEM
Operational
CHAR.
Characteristics
DEFINITION

CONCEPTUAL RD&D
Utility Rates DESIGNS REQMTS.

SUBSYSTEM
—► Generation Options
REQMTS.
CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS

Figure 1-1. Conceptual Overview of Study Approach

 • Ranking and prioritization of cogeneration concepts.

• Assessment of future research development and demonstration needs.

This report describes the results of the surveys and case studies of industrial
cogeneration.

REFERENCES

1. Electric Power Research Institute, Dual Energy Use System Workshop Summary,
EM-718-SR, Palo Alto, California, March 1978.

2. Synergic Resources Corporation, Evaluation of Dual Energy Use Systems (DEUS)

Applications: Project Overview, RP1276, Electric Power Research Institute,
May 1979.

3. Dow Chemical Company, et al., Industrial Energy Center Study, prepared for
the National Science Foundation, June 1975.

4. Stanford Research Institute, Patterns of Energy Consumption in the U.S.,

Report submitted to the Office of Science and Technology, January 1972.

5. Thermo Electron Corporation, A Study of In-Plant Electric Power Generation

in the Chemical, Petroleum and Paper and Pulp Industries, Report to Federal
Energy Administration, July 1976.

6. G. M. Hatsopoulos, et al., A National Policy for Industrial Energy

Conservation, Thermo Electron Corporation, April 1977.

7. Resource Planning Associates, The Potential for Cogeneration Development in

Six Major Industries by 1985, Report to Federal Energy Administration,
September 1977.

8. R. W. Barnes, et al.. Industry Resource Group Report to the Committee on

Nuclear and Alternate Energy System, sponsored by the National Research
Council (unpublished).

9. R. W. Barnes, A Comparative Evaluation of Recent Reports on the Energy

Conservation Potential from Cogeneration, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1979.

10. U.S. Department of Energy, CTAS - Overview and Summary of Results, Briefing
Paper, July 1979.

11. U.S. Department of Energy, Industrial Cogeneration Optimization Program,

Request for Proposal Number EM-78-R-01-4300, April 1978. Contracts were
awarded to Arthur D. Little, Inc. and TRW/Thermo Electron, and are expected
to be completed in 1980.

12. Department of Energy, Program Opportunity Notice No. EM-78-N-01-4135, 1978.

13. Drexel University, Industrial Applications Study, Volumes I-V, Report to

ERDA, NTIS CONS/2862-1 through 2862-5, December 1976.

14. As reported by TRW Inc. to the Tennessee Valley Authority in the TVA study on
cogeneration.

1-10
15. Harvey Campbell, "Industrial Cogeneration: Vulcan Materials Company
Experience," in Proceedings of the Symposium on Cogeneration Opportunities,
St. Louis, Missouri, June 1978.

16. H. S. Davis, et al., Potential for Cogeneration of Heat and Electricity in

California Industry - Part I, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Publication 78-42,
May 1, 1978.

17. Synergic Resources Corporation, Cogeneration, Heat Recovery and Waste

Utilization in Industry, forthcoming Report to Missouri Division of Energy.

18. Current project being performed by Thermo Electron Company for the State of
Illinois.

19. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Governor's Commission on Cogeneration,

Cogeneration - Its Benefits to New England, October 1978.

20. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, "An Assessment of Cogeneration

Potential," Request for Proposal, March 1980.

21. Rocket Research Company, Industrial Electrical Cogeneration Potential for the
Bonneville Power Administration Service Area, Report submitted to BPA,
January 1979.

22. Tennessee Valley Authority, A Preliminary Assessment of Cogeneration Potential

in the TVA Region, June 1979.

23. Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Industrial Cogeneration, Newark,
New Jersey, 1978.

24. M. H. Ross and R. H. Williams, "The Potential for Fuel Conservation,"

Technology Review, February 1977.

25. Cindy Miller, The Case for Industrial Cogeneration, New Jersey Public Interest
Research Group, 1977.

26. Mathtech, Inc., Forecasting In-Plant Electric Generation in the Industrial

Sector, forthcoming Report to EPRI.

27. R. Wakefield, D. Limaye, et al., Assessment of Dual Energy Use System (DEUS)
Fuel Cell Applications, EPRI, 1979.

1-11
'CM
 SECTION 2

SUMMARY OF INDUSTRIAL COGENERATION CASE STUDY RESULTS

INTRODUCTION

This section presents information compiled in the case studies of industrial

cogeneration systems. Much of the information on 12 systems reported was
initially collected in a cogeneration survey conducted by TRW, Inc. (1). This
information was verified, updated and expanded by Synergic Resources Corporation
by direct contacts with plant operating personnel and utility representatives.
Additional case studies were also conducted by SRC.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CASE STUDY CANDIDATES

The cogeneration systems studied in this project were selected after a formal
screening process. An initial list of cogenerators was prepared by TRW and
screened using these criteria {1). Because of the difficulties in obtaining
data from some of the selected candidates, Synergic Resources Corporation per­
formed a second screening to add a number of case study sites.

In order to be selected as a case study candidate, the cogeneration system had to

satisfy the following requirements:

• Currently operational.

• At least one year old.

• Electrical capacity of greater than 5 MW (preferably greater than

10 MW).

• Operational for at least 8 hours per day.

• Currently providing both electrical and thermal energy.

• In the industrial sector, preferably in the energy-intensive

manufacturing industries.•

• Willing to cooperate and provide data.

2-1
In addition, the candidates as a group were selected to represent a diversity of:

• Prime movers/thermodynamic cycles

• Utility interface

• Primary fuels

• Ownership

• Industrial groups (SIC)

• Geographic location.

A list of the selected case study candidates is given in Table 2-1. Figure 2-1
shows the location of these systems.

SUMMARY OF DATA FROM CASE STUDIES

The cogeneration systems described in this report offer a diversity of ages,

sizes, efficiencies, types of equipment, thermal-electric load ratios, fuels
used, fuel costs, utility interfaces, and economic performances. Since cogenera­
tion systems are designed for the industrial facility which they serve, it is not
surprising that they tend to be unique in design. The one common quality they
show is the ability to generate electricity more efficiently than is possible for
a utility power plant by utilizing energy which would be wasted during conven­
tional generation. Table 2-2 presents basic characteristics of the 17 cogenera­
tion systems included in this survey. These characteristics are described below.

Age

The oldest cogeneration system in this study began generating in 1929; the newest
began cogenerating in 1979 (see Table 2-2, Column 1). Of the eight plants which
began cogenerating before 1950, seven have expanded capacity since their original
start up; however, only one plant constructed since 1950 has expanded capacity.
When older plants were in need of replacement equipment, the operators tended to
undertake expansions at the same time. It is interesting to note that five
plants initiated operation or expanded operations after the oil embargo of 1973,
suggesting that rapid increases in fuel and electricity prices encouraged
consideration of cogeneration.

Size

Size differences between systems were somewhat minimized since plants under 10 MW
capacity were generally excluded from the survey. The cogeneration system

2-2
 Table 2-1

LIST OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

1. American Enka Company - Lowland, Tennessee

2. Anheuser Busch, Inc. - St. Louis, Missouri

3. Bowater Southern Paper Corporation - Calhoun, Tennessee

4. (Name Withheld)* - Pennsylvania

5. General Foods Corporation - Woburn, Massachusetts

6. Gulf States Utility Company - Baton Rouge, Louisiana

7. Holly Sugar Corporation - Brawley, California

8. Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Avon, California

9. Potlatch Corporation - Lewiston, Idaho

10. Riverside Cement Company - Oro Grande, California

11. St. Regis Paper - Houston, Texas

12. Shell Oil Company - Deerpark, Texas

13. Celanese Chemical Company/Southwestern Public Service Co. - Pampa, Texas

14. Phillips Petroleum Company/Southwestern Public Service Co. - Borger, Texas

15. Southern California Edison - Pomona, California

16. Stauffer Chemical Company - Henderson, Nevada

17. Union Carbide Corporation - Texas City, Texas

*Due to confidentiality restrictions, the name of this company cannot be

disclosed.

2-3
 [north DAKOTA TENNlSJli
i f

ftOWA

Tcoloraoo

\ 16

ALASKA

*Exact location disguised.

Figure 2-1. Location of Cogenerators Surveyed

 Table 2-2

CHARACTERISTICS OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NAME OF FIRM ANNUAL 1979 ELEC.

YEAR YEAR ELECTRIC 1979 FUEL
ELECTRIC UTILITY SYSTEM OPERATIONS FUELS PURCHASE
COGENERATION LAST CAPACITY COST
GENERATION RELATIONS8 TYPEb MODE* USED COST
BEGAN EXPANSION (MW) ($/10 Btu)
(Million KWH) (<?/kwh)

AMERICAN ENKA 1947 Thermal,

1960 20 88 PO STT Coal 1.44 2.4
Electric

ANHEUSER BUSCH 1929 1951 27.6 72 PO SIT Thermal Coal, NG 2.25 NA

BOWATER SOUTHERN 1954 45 Wood wastes,

- 378 GI STT Thermal 1.00 2.5
Oil, NG

(NAME WITHHELD) 1934 1948 11 65 PO STT Thermal Oil 2.40 NA

GENERAL FOODS 1978 - 7.5 26 GI STT Thermal NG 2.50 3.8

GULF STATES NG, Refinery

1930 1954 190 1,078 GI STT Thermal 2.60 -
UTILITY COMPANY Gas

HOLLY SUGAR 1949 1978 7.5 16 I STT Electric NG 2.40 NA

PACIFIC GAS NG, Refinery Propri­

1939 - 50 209 GI STT Thermal -
6 ELECTRIC Gas etary

POTLATCH 20 NG, Black

1951 1977 102 PO STT Thermal 1.20 0.8
Liquor

RIVERSIDE CEMENT 1954 15 Waste heat.

-- 126 GI STB Electric (d) 3.75
Oil

ST. REGIS 1967 95 Combined NG,

- 557 GI Thermal 1.15 2.3
Cycle Wood waste

SHELL OIL 1941 60 Thermal, Refinery

1979 342 PO STT, GT 2.40 2.2
Electric Gas, NG

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/
1979 - 30 189 GI STT Electric Coal 1.20 3.0
CELANESEc

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/
1966 - 33 NA GI GT Electric NG 2.40 3.0
PHILLIPS

SOUTHERN Electric, Propri­

1960 - 14.5 78 GI GT NG, Oil -
CALIFORNIA EDISON Thermal etary

STAUFFER CHEMICAL 1968 27 Combined

- 180 PO Thermal NG 2.70 2.9
Cycle

UNION CARBIDE 1941 1967 70 386 PO STT, GT Thermal NG 2.50 2.8

See Footnotes at end of Table.

 Table 2-2 (Continued)

CHARACTERISTICS OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

NAME OF FIRM
11 12 13
ALPHA
14

NET
15 1 16
DEMAND MET BY
17 18

UNSCHEDULED
19

FUEL COST
20

FUEL COST
CAPACITY SYSTEM VALUE HEAT COGENERATION (%) AVAILABILITY
OUTAGES THERMAL ELECTRIC
FACTOR EFFICIENCY Btu(e)/ RATE <%)
(hrs/yr) ($/106 Btu)1 (C/KWH)®
Btu(t)e Btu/KWH THERMAL ELECTRICAL

AMERICAN ENKA 0.50 0.62 0.14 6,430 100 23 99.9 0 2.45 0.9

ANHEUSER BUSCH 0.30 0.77 0.11 5,600 100 41 99.9 0 2.86 1.3

BOWATER SOUTHERN 0.96 0.55 0.27 11,190* 82 39 99+ 0 1.43 1.1

(NAME WITHHELD) 0.67 0.76 0.12 5,750 100 71 99.9 0 3.06 1.4

CO
i
GENERAL FOODS 0.40 0.73 0.15 7,650 62 100 85 0 3.16

-H
GULF STATES
0.65 0.73 0.17 5,830 - - 99.9 1 3.43 1.5
UTILITY COMPANY

HOLLY SUGAR 0.24 0.70 0.10 7,550 73 100 99.9 0 3.32 1.9

PACIFIC GAS
0.47 0.60 0.46 9,100 - - 99.9 NA - -
S ELECTRIC

POTLATCH 0.58 0.64 0.03 5,700 82 23 95+ NA 1.86 0.7

RIVERSIDE CEMENT 0.96 <h) <h) ll,320h 0 87 99.9 NA (d) (d)

ST. REGIS 0.67 0.67 0.21 5,200 100 NA 99+ 48 1.72 0.6

SHELL OIL 0.65 0.76 0.07 4,500 NA 21 99.7 0 3.15 1.1

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/ 0.6

NA 0.67 0.07 4,800 NA NA NA NA 1.80
CELANESE®

SOUTHWEST PUBLIC/ 1.7

NA 0.70 0.48 7,030 NA NA 99.9 0 -
PHILLIPS

SOUTHERN
0.61 0.65 0.34 6,630 - - 94 NA - -
CALIFORNIA EDISON

STAUFFER CHEMICAL 0.76 0.74 0.30 5,050 100 50 98 NA 3.51 1.4

UNION CARBIDE 0.63 0.68 0.08 6,600 100 100 99.9 NA 3.60 1.7

See Footnotes on the following page.

 Table 2-2 (Concluded)

CHARACTERISTICS OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS STUDIED

FOOTNOTES

o Utility Relations:
I - Isolated
PO - Parallel Operation
GI - Grid Interconnected

b STT Steam turbine topping cycle

STB Steam turbine bottoming cycle
GT Gas turbine topping cycle
STT, GT Steam turbine and gas turbine operating in parallel
CC Combined cycle, gas turbine exhaust used to produce steam for
steam turbine

c Celanese numbers have been estimated from numbers given by utility.

d Riverside Cement utilizes waste heat — no price could be assigned since

the waste heat is a byproduct of the kiln process. The value of the
input fuel is fully utilized in the kiln.

• Alpha value is the ratio of the Btu value of electricity generated to

the Btu content of steam produced for process.

f Fuel Cost Thermal is the cost of the fuel needed per million Btu of
process steam.

g Fuel Cost Electric is the cost of the fuel needed to generate 1 kWh of
electricity.

h Riverside is bottoming cycle — steam efficiency and alpha value not

applicable. Heat rate high because of bottoming cycle operation.

i Facility is operated to follow either thermal or electric loads, or

some combination of both.

j The unusually high heat rate for Bowater Southern is due to the combina­
tion of combustion of low efficiency fuels (black liquor, wood wastes)
and the use of the condensing mode of some turbines to generate
additional electricity.

ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS

NA - Not Available.
NG - Natural Gas.

2-7
capacities varied from 7.5 MW to 90 MW, with an average value of 43 MW (Table 2-2,
Column 3). The average annual generation was 240,000 megawatt-hours with an
average capacity factor of 0.63. Capacity factors are somewhat misleading in this
context, since some cogeneration equipment, such as extraction/condensing steam
turbines, can have different capacities depending upon the mode of operations.

Utility Interface

The type of connection between the utility and the cogeneration system depends on
ownership of the system, utility attitudes toward purchase of cogenerated power,
and the industry's perception of utility reliability. Only one system was isolated
from the grid (Table 2-2, Column 5). Utility owned or operated systems were grid
integrated while industry operated units were usually run in parallel to the grid
except when the utility was willing to purchase power. Whether a plant was
electric or thermal load-following was independent of relations with the utility.
Such relations depended more on the design of the system and the requirements of
the industrial customer.

System Design

System design exemplified the individuality of cogeneration systems (Table 2-2,

Column 6). There were ten Rankine cycle systems (steam turbine topping), two
Brayton cycles (gas turbine with heat recovery boilers), two systems which used
both cycles in parallel, two systems which were combined cycles (gas turbines feed
exhaust gas to’'!waste heat boiler, steam from waste heat boiler passes through a
turbogenerator before being sent to process steam), and one system which used
process waste heat to generate steam to drive a turbogenerator in a bottoming
cycle. Other design features which differed between systems were the type of
turbogenerators used in Rankine cycles: backpressure turbines which extract
steam at one pressure, extraction turbines which allow the user to remove steam
from the turbine at different pressures and condensing turbines which condense the
steam resulting in maximization of electricity production but eliminates production
of useful process steam.

The amount and operating conditions of the steam boilers also varied between
systems. Brayton cycles had the option of supplementary firing in the waste heat
boilers to produce additional steam. Combined cycle systems supplemented steam
flow from the waste heat boiler to the turbogenerator by adding additional steam
from direct-fired boilers. Expansion valves allowed the option of diverting steam
from the turbines directly to process if needed. The reason for these various

2-8
combinations is to provide the necessary flexibility to handle any possible
contingency. Unfortunately, increased flexibility usually required increased
capital costs and in some cases, decreased operating efficiency types.

Efficiency

A number of factors interact to influence the efficiency at which a cogeneration

system will operate. The cogeneration systems in this study had system efficiencies
ranging from 0.55 to 0.77, with an average value of 0.68 (Table 2-2, Column 12).
One important factor in determining efficiency was the cost of the fuel burned
(Table 2-2, Column 9). There are two reasons for this relationship: inexpensive
fuels such as coal, or waste fuels like bark, are inefficient to burn (75 percent
is considered a good efficiency for a coal-fired boiler, efficiencies of 55 to
60 percent are quoted for woodwaste and black liquor); and systems which burn
expensive fuels have generally been designed to reduce waste energy losses.

Operating Mode

The design of the system and its operating mode will affect efficiency (Table 2-2,
Column 7). Depending on the requirements of the customer, the operator of a
cogeneration facility will need to manage the steam and/or electric production to
meet demands upon the system. If the system is thermal load following, peak
steam demands can be met by diverting steam from the turbines or using a separate
boiler to generate additional steam. To meet peak electric demands, a gas turbine
might be operated at a higher power level or a steam turbine could be run in a
condensing mode.

Heat Rate

The net heat rate is an indirect measure of efficiency (Table 2-2, Column 14).
The heat rate is defined as the amount of fuel required (in Btu) to generate one
kilowatt-hour of electricity. In normal electricity generation, heat rate is
calculated by dividing the Btu content of the fuel consumed by the total generation
in kilowatt-hours. For a cogeneration unit, determining the net heat rate is
somewhat more complex. It requires assigning part of the fuel consumed to
electricity and the rest to thermal energy production (see Figure 2-2). A typical
heat rate for an efficient utility power plant would be around 10,500 Btu/KWH (2).
About 5,000 Btu are lost in the steam after it passes through the turbogenerator.
Cogeneration is an attempt to avoid the second of these losses by using the steam
for process heat instead of merely having it condensed and recycled to the boiler

2-9
 LOSSES
(PS Btu)

FUEL
TURBINE
(F Btu) (S Btu) (E Btu)
GENERATOR

FEEDWATER

B(F-S) + (S-PS)
KWHs Generated

KWHs Generated

where equivalent heat content of electricity,

enthalpy of steam - enthalpy of boiler feedwater,
enthalpy of process steam - enthalpy of boiler feetwater.
potential heat content of fuel.

Note that for a utility power plant, gross heat rate is equivalent to net heat rate
since B = 1 and PS = 0.

Figure 2-2. Illustration of Net Heat Rate Calculation for Steam Turbine Topping

or discharged to a river. In a Rankine cycle, net heat rate is determined by the

efficiency with which steam is produced by the boilers, the efficiency of the
turbogenerator, and whether some steam is partially condensed.

For a Brayton cycle, the determining factor is the efficiency of the gas turbine
in generating electricity. The Rankine cycle plants had net heat rates which
ranged from 4,800 to 11,190, the two Brayton cycle plants heat rates were 6,630
and 7,030, and the combined cycle plants were 5,050 and 5,200, while the two
parallel cycle designs had values of 4,500 and 6,600. Due to the wide variety of
system types and electric/thermal energy ratios, the preceding figures demonstrate
that there is a wide range of net heat rate values for actual plants.

2-10
Reliability

One common aspect to all the cogeneration units in the survey was the satisfaction
of the owners and operators with the reliability of the systems. Unscheduled
outages were reported to be infrequent and of short duration. One reason for this
fine performance was the redundancy built into many of the systems. The use of
multiple boilers and turbogenerators means that the loss of one component will not
result in a forced outage, while the smaller size and relative simplicity of
cogeneration equipment makes repair easier and quicker than for large central
power station equipment.

Fuel Costs

In Table 2-2, Column 20 lists the cost of the fuel needed to generate a kilowatt-
hour of electricity. This number does not include operating and maintenance costs
(usually around 3 to 5 mills/kWh) and amortization of capital costs. The latter
is difficult to determine because of the age of the systems and the various
methods used to calculate capital charges and depreciation rates. By adding an
estimate for ownership and maintenance costs to the fuel costs, the resultant
figure can be considered the cost of cogeneration. It is interesting to note
than the companies with the lowest cogeneration cost burn either coal or waste
products from paper production (bark, hog fuel, black liquor). When these
cogenerators are compared with the corresponding utility company, the utility's
fuel mix consisted of mostly coal and nuclear except for St. Regis/Houston
Lighting & Power (see Table 2-3). This tendency implies that cogenerators are
not necessarily using extra oil or gas by cogenerating with these fuels and
replacing coal or nuclear generation. In fact, some cogenerators currently using
natural gas have suggested that they might discontinue cogenerating electricity
if their utility switched to coal or nuclear power.

LIMITATIONS

It is important to note that some of the data given in this report should be
considered limited in applicability. The data in these case studies were gathered
from a variety of sources, but are limited by the accuracy and detail of the
information furnished by the cogenerating industry or utility. Since most
companies do not conduct close monitoring of their thermal flows, steam production
figures are usually estimated. Some companies had detailed knowledge of their
fuel consumption, but most cogenerators provided estimates for daily or monthly
averages. In many cases, it was impossible to determine the existence and
quantity of steam driven mechanical drives. When questionable or incomplete data

2-11
 Table 2-3

FUEL USE OF COGENERATORS AND UTILITIES

STEAM PLANT FUEL MIX

(Percent)
COGENERATOR FUEL UTILITY

TYPE 1977 1985

General Foods Gas Boston Edison Oil 61 56

Nuclear 39 44

(Name Withheld) Oil (Name Withheld) Coal 35 21

Oil 25 16
Nuclear 40 63

Anheuser Busch Natural gas, Union Electric Coal 98 78

Coal Oil 2 2
Nuclear 0 20

American Enka Coal

Coal 81 59
Bowater Southern Wood waste, Tennessee Valley
Oil
Black liquor, Authority
Nuclear 16 40
Natural gas,
and Oil

Gulf States Natural gas, Gulf States Oil 10 NA

Utility Company Refinery gas Utility Company Gas 90 NA

St. Regis Refinery gas Coal 4 23

Houston Lighting
Oil 42
Shell Oil Natural gas, & Power
Gas 96 17
Wood waste
Nuclear 18

Celanese Coal Southwestern Coal 27 57

Public Service Oil 0 0
Phillips Natural gas
Gas 73 42

Stauffer Chemical Natural gas Nevada Power Co. Coal 76 76

Oil 2 2
Gas 23 23

Riverside Waste heat Coal 18 15

Oil, Gas 79 63
Southern California Edison
Nuclear 3 22
California Edison gas

Holly Sugar Natural gas Imperial Irriga- Oil 56 NA

tion District Gas 44 NA

Pacific Gas & Natural gas, Pacific Gas & Oil 35 NA

Electric Refinery gas Electric Gas 65 NA

Potlatch Natural gas, Washington Water

Black liquor Power

Union Carbide Natural gas Community Public Purchase power from

Service Corp. Houston Lighting &
Power (see above)

2-12
were submitted, follow-up interviews were attempted, and numbers were estimated
when it was not possible to clarify discrepancies. In addition, the age of many
systems created difficulties in obtaining economic data, while some companies
considered this information proprietary.

The complexity of some systems also led to situations where power plant managers
could not or would not collect the information which was requested. In their
day-to-day efforts, they apparently concentrated on maximizing availability,
reliability, and meeting demands as they occur, without worrying about developing
a detailed description of the system's heat balance. Since many of the facilities
have already been amortized, companies were not overly concerned with achieving
optimum performance of their units as long as they determined that the cogenera­
tion system was generating the electricity and steam needed, when they needed it,
and was doing it competitively with the cost of purchased power and steam.
Therefore, the companies are unwilling to invest in equipment or personnel needed
to carefully monitor their cogeneration systems. Nonetheless, the data given in
Table 2-2 can be considered a general description of the performance of cogenera­
tion systems, which is as accurate as available data permit without a systematic
instrumentation and monitoring program.

TWO RECENTLY INSTALLED COGENERATION SYSTEMS

Two companies had recently completed plants, and though operating experience was
not available, sufficient data concerning economics and expected technical
performance was provided to make some comparisons. Shell Oil Company added a
60 MWe, 2 million pound per hour gas-fired boiler-turbogenerator combination at its
refinery in Deerpark, Texas, in 1979. During the same year, a 30 MWe, 1.3 million
pound per hour coal-fired boiler-turbogenerator system went on line for the
Celanese Chemical Company in Pampa, Texas. Table 2-4 presents some characteristics
of these two systems. Some of the Celanese figures have been estimated, while
most of the values for the Shell unit were derived from information provided by the
company.

Some modifications were made in formulating the data to compensate for the
tendency toward optimism when estimating the expected performance of a new
facility. It was felt that the adoption of more conservative estimates would
result in operating and economic data which reflected more realistic operating
conditions. For the Shell plant, a boiler efficiency of 85 percent was assumed in
place of the 89 percent implied by figures supplied by the company. Shell's

2-13
 Table 2-4

COMPARISON OF TWO NEW (1979) COGENERATION SYSTEMS

CHARACTERISTICS SHELL CELANESE

Boiler Capacity (million Ib/hr) 2.0 1.3

Electricity Capacity (MW) 60 30
Turbine Inlet Conditions (psig/F°) 1500/1000 1450/950
Turbine Outlet Conditions (psig/F°) 650/750 650/750
Heat Rate (Btu/KWH) 4,500 4,800
Boiler Efficiency (percent) 85 75
System Efficiency (percent) 84 67
Hours Operation Per Year 7,884 7,008
Capacity Factor 0.9 0.9
Fuel Consumption (trillion Btu/yr) 22.04 14.45
Thermal to Process (trillion Btu/yr) 17.03 9.10
Electricity Generated (thousand MWH) 425.7 189.2
Capital Cost (million dollars) 125 89
Capital Charge (Thermal) - million $/yr. 18.75 12.40
Capital Charge (Electric) - million $/yr. 6.25 3.56
Operation and Maintenance (million dollars) 3.51 3.43*
Taxes and Insurance (million dollars) 1.63 1.16
Other Costs (million dollars) 0.66 0.66
Fuel Costs^ (million dollars) (Gas) (Coal)
Low Estimate 55.10 17.33
High Estimate 77.14 26.01
Electric Costs (£/KWH)
Low Estimate 2.71 2.63
High Estimate 3.16 2.92
Thermal Costs ($/10^ Btu)
Low Estimate 4.37 3.69
High Estimate 5.55 4.58

a Operation and maintenance cost for a coal-fired system is assumed to be 150

percent of a gas-fired system of the same capacity. The Celanese plant
capacity is related to the Shell facility on the basis of fuel consumption.
Celanese capacity is thus characterized as 65 percent of the Shell plant.

b Low Estimate: Gas $2.50/10^ Btu, Coal $1.20/106 Btu.

High Estimate: Gas $3.50/10^ Btu, Coal $1.80/10^ Btu.

2-14
estimate of operation time of 8,566 hours per year was replaced by 7,884 hours
per year, and the plant was assumed to operate at 90 percent of capacity instead
of 100 percent. Twenty-five percent of the capital cost of the Shell unit was
assumed to be attributable to cogeneration.

The Celanese plant was estimated to operate for 7,008 hours per year at 90 percent
of capacity, instead of 7,884 hours at 100 percent capacity. The capital cost of
the Celanese facility includes the cost of baghouses but excludes flue gas
desulphurization. Twenty percent of the unit's cost was assigned to the cogenera­
tion components. The system was designed for excess thermal production to provide
capacity for future expansions — 20 percent of the output from the turbine is
diverted to feedwater heating, lowering system efficiency.

All other costs for the two systems were split between electrical generation and
process steam in proportion to the fuel consumed in producing each end product,
as shown below:

Net heat rate (Btu/KWH) • Annual generation (KWH)

Proportion for electricity
Total Fuel Consumption (Btu)

Proportion for process steam = 1 - (Proportion for electricity)

A five-year payback was used and capital charges were calculated as 20 percent of
the proportion of capital costs assigned to each end product. Though Celanese
sells steam to Southwest Public Service Company, owner of the turbogenerator, and
buys electricity from the utility, it was assumed that the company owned the
whole system to simplify the comparison. The low estimate for fuel costs is based
on a price of $6 per ton for 0.4 percent sulphur coal, 10,000 Btu/pound, and $18
per ton transportation costs. The high estimate increases these prices by 50 per­
cent.

From data supplied by Shell and the St. Regis Paper Company, the average cost of
electricity from Houston Lighting & Power in 1978 was about 2.3 cents/KWH.
Houston Lighting and Power had increased rates to large industrial customers over
20 percent in 1979, and a similar increase is expected in 1980, due to the utility's
dependence on natural gas (_3). This implies an electricity cost of 3.3 to 3.6 cents
per KWH by the end of 1980. Southwest Public Service had estimated that the average
cost of electricity for Celanese in 1979 would be 3.0 cents/KWH. Thus, even under
the high fuel cost scenario, the companies could generate electricity at a lower

2-15
cost than their respective utility. When a cogenerator and a utility are both
experiencing rapid escalation in fuel prices, the greater heat rate of the utility
will result in a greater increase in generation costs than for the cogenerator.

DETAILED INFORMATION OF COGENERATION SYSTEMS SURVEYED

The detailed information on the 17 cogeneration systems surveyed in this effort

is presented in Section 4 of this report.

2-16
 SECTION 3

UTILITY PERSPECTIVES

BACKGROUND

Cogeneration of electricity and thermal power is not a new idea, developed in the
wake of the oil crisis of the 1970's. Though bottoming-cycle technologies have
only recently been developed to the commercial level, the earliest development in
industrial electrification included cogeneration systems. Indeed, from the 1880's
through 1910, industries met most of their electricity needs through on-site
generation and more than half of this was produced by topping cycle cogeneration
plants. Electric utility service was, during this period, frequently expensive
and unreliable. On-site generation was more reliable, or at least under the
control of the industrial user. Cogeneration then was a logical auxiliary to on­
site generation which was very economical.

Regulation of electric utilities began in 1907. First, individual state govern­

ments established regulating agencies. Eventually, the Federal government
followed with the passage of the Federal Power Act in 1925 and the Public
Utilities Holding Company Act in 1935. The regulatory bodies formed by these Acts
began to eliminate unproductive competition among a vast number of small utili­
ties, controlled the growth of large holding companies, monopolies, and led to the
extension of service areas. Technological advancements in generation and trans­
mission equipment helped make electric utilities more efficient and more reliable.
The cost of generating electricity went down. By the 1930's, the cost of utility­
generated electricity was much more competitive with on-site cogeneration.
Hence, as fuel prices went up, industrial cogeneration systems have been gradually
abandoned, except in areas where utility power was not available, or waste product
fuels could be used to beat the price of purchased power. Utility back-up power
service was made more expensive too, and the sale of excess power to utilities
became less feasible as utilities, effectively lowering the costs of generation,
reduced the price they would pay for power generated by industrial facilities.

Today, on-site industrial cogeneration systems in this country are common only in
a few industries where thermal and electric demands are favorably balanced and

3-1
coincident, and where cheaper fuels are available or utility power is not
available. These industries, interestingly, are generally the highest energy
users in the industrial sector. Previous studies have shown that cogeneration is
more feasible in the chemical, steel, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, food
processing, the textile industries. Together, these industries account for about
75 percent of all energy used in the manufacturing sector in the U.S. They also
account for most of the existing cogeneration facilities in America, as is
evidenced by the case studies presented in Section 2.

Utility company attitudes, perspectives, and concerns regarding on-site cogenera­

tion are presented in the next section in order to supplement the industrial
information presented in the previous chapter.

UTILITIES SURVEYED

This survey of utility perspectives on industrial cogeneration has included 11

utilities.*
* These utilities have shared with us the top level management attitudes
and opinions which determine company policy in these matters. The survey examined:

• General Operating Characteristics of the Utility, e.g., generating

capacity, fuels used, expansion plans, etc.

• Current Involvement with Cogeneration, i.e., number of cogenera­

tion plants in service area, industrial or utility ownership,
and involvement in the assessment of additional facilities.

• Specific Utility Policy Toward Cogeneration, such as the existence

of rate structures or tariffs, for standby service to cogeneration
plants and/or purchase of excess power from cogenerators, etc.

• Overall Attitude and Policy toward cogeneration in each utility's

service area.

Table 3-1 shows some of the general data on the utilities surveyed, including each
utility's primary fuel(s), its projected growth rate through 1990, and the percent­
age of its kilowatt-hour sales which is represented by power purchased from the
grid connections. These data are useful in assessing the utility fuels which
would be displaced by additional cogeneration facilities. This is particularly
relevant to the nation in terms of reducing our dependence of imported oil and
limited resources such as natural gas, and to potential cogenerators considering
sale of excess power to a utility. In the past, if a cogenerator was using an
expensive fuel, such as oil or gas, the utility may have been able to generate

*Some of the utility surveys were initially conducted by TRW, Inc.

3-2
 Table 3-1

GENERAL UTILITY DATA AND ATTITUDE TOWARD COGENERATION

Projected Preferred
Power Generation % of KWH No. of
Avg. Annual Ownership: Overall Attitude
Utility By Fuel Type, Sales Existing
Growth I=Industry Toward Cogeneration
Thousand MWH (1978) Purchased Cogenerators
Thru 1990 U=Utility

Alabama Power Coal 18,658 Not 17 19 Not Does not promote cogeneration
Company Nuclear 5,920 available available
Hydro 3,139 (positive)
Oil & Gas Negligible

Baltimore Gas Nuclear 9,702 Not Not 3 I Receptive to cogeneration

& Electric Coal 3,719 available available proposals; does not promote;
Oil/Steam 1,940 (positive) (believed has established power
Hydro 647 to be purchase rates.
Gas & Oil 162 small)

Boston Edison Oil 8,733 3.9% 5 More I Receptive to cogeneration

(1977 Data) Nuclear 2,652 than proposals but does not
Gas 3 2 actively promote.

Commonwealth Nuclear 30,600 4.2% 3 10-12 I or U Large nuclear £ coal base

Edison Coal 27,200 provides low cost power which
Gas 4,500 cogenerators must compete
with

Delmarva Power Oil 3,987 5.0% 1 1 U Receptive to cogeneration

£ Light (1977 Coal 1,957 proposals but no opportuni­
Data) Nuclear 1,305 ties in service area

New England Coal 11,116 2.8% 12 1 I or U Receptive to cogeneration

Power Service Hydro 1,597 proposals; does not promote
(1977 Data) Pumped
[Subsidiary of Storage
New England Hydro 95
Electric Gas & Oil 37
System)

Pacific Gas & Oil & Gas 30,500 3.5% 24 20 U Actively promoting cogenera­
Electric Hydro 13,480 tion via favorable rate
Geothermal 2,970 structures

Pennsylvania Coal 24,167 2.5-4% Sales to 8-9 I Actively promoting cogenera­

Power & Oil/Steam 6,426 power pool tion in order to defer power
Light Hydro 13,480 exceed plant construction
Gas & Oil 106 5 times
purchases

Philadelphia Nuclear 7,769 2.5% 23 12 I or U Receptive to cogeneration

Electric Oil 7,174 proposals? does not promote
Coal 6,690
Hydro 1,700

Southern Oil 27,369 3.5% 17 2 I Actively promoting cogenera­

California Gas 11,187 tion via favorable rate
Edison Coal 6,501 structures
Hydro 5,888
Nuclear 2,127

Tennessee Coal 77,939 2-4% 5 6 I Actively promoting cogenera­

Valley Hydro 20,694 tion in order to defer power
Authority Nuclear 15,795 plant construction
Oil & Gas 2,940

3-3
power cheaper (using coal, nuclear, or hydro), or to buy power from a pool more
cheaply than from a cogenerator. Under these conditions, the utility would have
been unwilling to buy power from the cogenerator. However, if by-product fuels,
wood, or coal were used in cogeneration, or if a utility depended heavily on oil
and gas generated power, cogenerators found utilities very willing to buy their
excess power.

With the passage of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA), utilities
are now required to purchase power from cogenerators at rates which are non-
discriminatory. Cogenerators can therefore find a market for their excess power.
However, the purchase price paid by a utility will depend on its alternative
options of generating power or purchasing from the power pool. The fuel mix of
the utility is therefore quite important in shaping its policies towards cogenera­
tion.

The projected growth rates of these utility systems vary somewhat; however, it is
important to note that the utilities are all projecting positive growth (even
those which did not disclose their projections, indicated positive growth).
Responses from utilities experiencing a decrease in the peak demands may have
shown a considerably different attitude toward increased industrial cogeneration,
which would reduce the utility's peak demand further.

Also presented in Table 3-1 are data indicating the number- of existing cogenera­
tors in each utility's service area. Utility attitudes toward ownership of
cogeneration plants and toward industrial cogeneration in general are also noted
in Table 3-1. Though the preferred ownership arrangements are shown, what is not
shown is that some utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric, TVA, and Southern
California Edison included) are willing to consider other ownership arrangements
under certain circumstances. Further discussion of utility attitudes with respect
to particular facets of cogeneration systems is presented in the following
section.

UTILITY CONCERNS REGARDING COGENERATION

All of the utilities surveyed, independent of their overall attitude, expressed

some concerns about involvement with DEUS operations. These concerns are in a
variety of areas, including:

• Reliability and maintenance of DEUS and the effects on the utility

and its customers.

3-4
 • Safety of interconnection equipment and utility personnel.

• Loss of customers and erosion of the utility's base load.

• Availability of buy-back power from industrial DEUS.

• Requirement for back-up capacity.

• Development of equitable rates from the viewpoints of the utility,

its customers and the cogenerator.

In general, the utilities participating in the survey would all strongly favor
DEUS in their service area if:

• There was no reliability or safety question.

• DEUS could be firm suppliers of power at a rate which would save

the utility money.

• Utilities could gain exceptions from NEA to burn oil or gas, or

get exceptions from emission standards to burn coal.

• There was no significant erosion of the utility's load base from

conversions to DEUS.

Even with these unresolved concerns, some utilities still have favorable attitudes;
toward cogeneration (DEUS). The following sections are an attempt to summarize
the major issues from the utility perspective.

Reliability and Maintenance

Reliability and maintenance of DEUS are really two factors which are very closely
related from the viewpoint of the utility. Reliability, as used here, is less a
reflection on the quality and dependability of the cogeneration equipment than it
is a concern with industry (cogenerator) operation in accordance with utility
needs. There is concern with long-term dependability upon the electric generating
capacity of the DEUS by the utility, and uncertainty regarding the availability of
that capacity when the utility needs it, or can use it economically. Industry and
utility interests may be working at cross purposes from time to time and negoti­
ation of a firm and effective contract between both parties is of primary concern
in any cogeneration system which will sell excess power. In addition, with an
industry-owned and operated DEUS, there is always some concern that the operator
of any particular plant may shut down and go out of business, leaving the utility
without some capacity it had depended upon. These concerns have led some utilities
to desire utility ownership of DEUS.

3-5
Maintenance of a DEUS is a concern to utilities primarily with respect to the
responsibility for it, industry or utility. Most utilities surveyed felt that
industry should maintain industry-owned and operated facilities, and perhaps
should maintain jointly-owned facilities sited at the industrial location. Other
utilities, generally those favoring utility ownership of DEUS facilities, prefer
utility operation and maintenance. This viewpoint is partially a product of good
experience in utility operating and maintenance and partially a concern with
industry competence to perform maintenance properly and at times operate in a
manner compatible with utility needs. However, one utility does point out that,
although they favor utility maintenance at this time, if they were to have many
cogenerators spread all around their service area, the maintenance of all of them
would become very costly.

Some utilities have established rather stringent maintenance procedures which must
be followed by industrial cogenerators. One utility in particular cites problems
experienced with an Industry-owned DEUS which supplied a high reactive load to the
utility grid, and is very concerned about operation and maintenance procedures on
all DEUS in its service area. This utility's attitude has been seriously dampened
with regard to any further cogenerators. However, due to the strict standards now
being used by this utility in evaluating the reliability, maintainability, and
safety of DEUS facilities, it is unlikely that they will experience similar
problems again.

Another concern expressed in several utility interviews is a labor relations

problem regarding maintenance of cogeneration systems. If an industry which
operates a DEUS is struck, the DEUS power capacity is lost to the utility. Even
if the utility operates and maintains a DEUS on-site where an industry is struck,
capacity may be lost due to the utility employees' union honoring the industry
picket lines. Only where a DEUS facility is located separately from an industrial
facility and operated by the utility is the utility assured of firm capacity in
every case except a strike against the utility.

It should be noted that the concerns expressed in the foregoing discussion are,
for the most part, in regard to DEUS facilities which sell power to the utility
grid, and that those cogenerators which do not sell power or those which are
isolated from the power grid are of much less concern to the utilities.

3-6
Safety of Utility Equipment and Personnel

Only a few utilities mention their concerns with these safety matters, however,
most of the utilities have policies which express these concerns implicitly. For
example, most utilities will perform the installation of interconnection gear
themselves, in some cases they will bear the cost also. All have standards, at
least, for safe interconnection, and most retain control of the intertie. Those
who support utility ownership of DEUS facilities use safety of interconnections
as support for their position. One utility reported past problems with inter­
connection equipment and also expressed that its concern for safe interties is to
some degree associated with its concern for employee safety. In the case of a
utility power outage, power from a DEUS feeding the grid could endanger employees
working to repair power lines. In general, more agreement was expressed by the
surveyed utilities with regard to interconnection safety than on any other subject.

Loss of Customers

Although all of the utility systems in this survey are growing systems, most are
not growing as fast as was once anticipated. One, in particular, expressed the
concern that they would not like to lose many (any) more industrial customers from
their load base. This utility has experienced the loss of several industrial
customers over the last few years, not to cogeneration, but to other cities, due
to regional economics beyond the control of any utility company. Erosion of the
industrial base of utility service area could harm the operational economics of
any utility, although this point was not explicitly mentioned by other utilities.
Even utilities which are struggling to meet their area electricity demands by using
old and expensive oil and gas fired equipment, or by purchasing power from power
pools during peak periods, would not be happy to lose a single industrial customer
because of the base load character of industrial electricity use. It is only the
high peaking customers, or demands, which these utilities might by happy or
unconcerned about losing.

DEUS Ownership

Most surveyed utilities favored industry ownership of DEUS facilities with utility
owned and controlled intertie. Apparently, this position is believed to encourage
financial responsibility on the part of the industry and reduce the losses to the
utility should the industry or plant fold. One utility feels that it is beyond
the scope of their chartered activities to own DEUS facilities. Others are more
receptive to either option. Two utilities strongly favor utility ownership,
apparently because they wish to have full control of their generating capacity and,

3-7
at least in one case, because such an arrangement has been very satisfactory in
the past. Another utility, which generally favors industry ownership of DEUS, is
also exploring the possibility of using combustion turbines which the utility
currently owns for utility-owned cogeneration arrangements. These combustion
turbines are excess peaking capacity that the utility purchased some years ago
when its projected growth rate was much higher. Now, with the additions to its
base load capacity, the utility has very little use for these turbines, and is
willing to relocate them to the site of an industry where a DEUS would be
economically favorable to both the customer and the utility.

Rates for DEUS

Four of the utilities surveyed have established buy-back rates for cogenerated
power. These are based on each utility's system energy or fuel costs and are
adjusted to encourage on-peak deliveries. The other utilities which have experi­
ence in purchasing cogenerated power indicated that they will determine rates on
a case-by-case basis by individual contract negotiation. All of these utilities
expressed a willingness to provide additional payment for cogeneration power
offered as firm capacity. Most utilities expressed the opinion that cogeneration
power for sale to utilities should be an economic advantage to both the DEUS owner
and the utility. That is, DEUS should, be able to sell power for more than it
costs to generate, and for less than it would cost the utility to generate (or
purchase) replacement power. This criterion is considered a possible barrier to
cogeneration in some utility service areas dominated by nuclear and coal fueled
power plants. At least one utility feels that its low generation costs are a
barrier to oil or gas fired cogeneration, while environmental regulation will
probably prohibit coal-fired DEUS in its service area.

TVA established an aggressive policy to encourage cogeneration power sales to that

utility in 1979. TVA will pay 135 percent of the prevailing wholesale demand and
energy charges for power sold to TVA during on-peak hours and 85 percent of the
wholesale charges for off-peak power. These prices will be paid to any cogenerator
committing itself to a 10-year period of operation. Other utilities are also
developing rate structures which are more favorable for the cogenerator willing to
sell excess power. PG&E recently announced new rates for power purchases (as
encouraged by the California PUC) which reflect the avoided cost of generating
power from oil-fired plants. The utility will pay 4.496 cents per kWh for power
delivered during peak hours, 4.25 cents per kWh for power delivered during partial
peak hours, and 3.794 cents per kWh during off-peak hours. These rates will be
adjusted quarterly to reflect changes in oil prices. PG&E is also offering to pay

3-8
62 dollars per kW of capacity per year for firm generating capacity offered on a
10-year contract basis. Contracts can also be arranged for firm capacity available
during June, July and August, when PG&E sees its highest peaks.

Recently published regulations implementing PURPA (The Public Utility Regulatory

Policy Act of 1978) require all utilities to pay rates for purchased power which
are "just and reasonable" and do not discriminate against small power production
facilities and cogenerators. These rates shall reflect "avoided costs of
generation" if the power generator is a new facility (construction started after
November 9, 1978) unless a state regulatory authority or nonregulated utility
determines that a lower rate is just and reasonable and does not discriminate
against small generators.

Virtually all of the utilities surveyed have schedules for standby power for use as
backup to DEUS operators. One utility would determine these rates case-by-case and
one provided no response to this question. Standby power rates apparently distin­
guish clearly the utilities which encourage DEUS from those which do not. Among
the utilities not promoting cogeneration, standby power charges ranged from $3.75
to over $6.00 per kW of standby capacity per month. In contrast, those utilities
supporting DEUS development through special provisions such as interruptibility or
rachets on contract demand, could allow standby capacity (demand charges) to be
virtually free. Other plans offered by these utilities charge as little as 75
cents to $1.00 per kW per month.

SUMMARY

Only four of the utilities surveyed are actively promoting cogeneration. Two of
them are in California and are following the directive of the California Public
Utility Commission which takes a very positive attitude regarding alternative
energy sources. In addition, these California utilities purchase a very high
percentage of the power they sell, which often is more expensive than cogenerated
power. And, of course, the cogenerated power would not displace current utility
capacity.

One of the others is the Tennessee Valley Authority, a Federal agency, whose
charter directs it to minimize power costs to its customers. TVA is promoting
cogeneration to get industrial customers to shift from oil or natural gas to coal,
wood, municipal solid waste, or other substitute fuel and to increase the effi­
ciency of fuel resource utilization. Electrical capacity developed by cogenerators
will help to maintain lower rates by deferring the construction of expensive new
power plants in the future.

3-9
Six other utilities accept cogeneration proposals but do not actively promote them.
Their lukewarm attitudes are based on a variety of circumstances. One utility
feels caught in the bind of dual regulatory constraints. Cogeneration facilities
would likely use gas or oil and would therefore require exemptions from the
National Energy Act of 1978. These exemptions would be difficult to obtain since
cogenerated power would be displacing nuclear and coal-generated utility power.
However, should the cogenerator select coal as a fuel for his facility, EPA New
Source Performance Standards would be difficult and expensive to meet. This
utility has relatively low rates because of its nuclear and coal-based power, such
that cogeneration is less likely to be economically feasible in this system.

Another utility operates a cogeneration plant fueled by a refinery by-product —

petroleum coke. This utility believes that the availability of just such a low
cost by-product fuel is essential to successful cogeneration.

Technical problems with past and current cogeneration has dampened the enthusiasm
of another utility. This utility is establishing high standards for new cogenera­
tors to meet, particularly with respect to interconnections, which may drive up
the cost of cogeneration systems. There is also a desire to stay out of the
operation phase of cogeneration in order to avoid labor disputes.

Only one utility was genuinely uninterested in cogeneration, although there are
currently several systems operating in its service area. This utility declined to
discuss any of their reasons for this attitude.

Each of the utilities in this survey has a unique set of circumstances including
regulatory environment, types of fuels relied upon, customer make-up, and growth in
demand. Additionally, each utility in this group has had experiences with DEUS
facilities, and these experiences have influenced their current opinions on the
subject. There is no general theme which carries through all utilities surveyed
regarding cogeneration, except that: When a DEUS is technically and environmentally
feasible, and of economic advantage to both industry and utility, then the utility
will support it.

Another common concern of most utilities is the uncertainty that they feel regarding
legislative and regulatory action affecting cogeneration. The thrust of most of the
recent legislation is to encourage energy conservation; but there are questions
regarding availability of oil and gas to cogenerators, higher prices for deregulated

3-10
oil and gas to cogenerators (and utilities) which affect DEUS economic viability,
and environmental regulation with respect to coal use (and use of other waste
fuels) by cogenerators. Together, these factors create a confused picture
regarding the viability and desirability from the viewpoint of the utilities.

3-11
 SECTION 4

COGENERATION CASE STUDY DATA

The following pages provide the information for the industrial cogeneration case
studies in a standard format.
 AMERICAN ENKA COMPANY

The cogeneration system of the American Enka Company in Lowland, Tennessee,

exemplifies the possible complexity that can be built into this type of facility.
The system includes a backpressure turbine, three extraction-condensing turbines,
backpressure and condensing turbines used for mechanical drives and refrigeration
machines, and expansion valves to supply additional process steam at various
pressures. There are a total of 60 turbines used for mechanical drives along
with the four turbogenerators and eight coal-fired boilers supplying steam to the
system. One advantage of this complexity is a high degree of reliability due to
redundancy. The company reported no forced outages in 1978.

The company stated that the payback period was three years — however, it
mentioned a return on investment of greater than 10 percent with no mention of
how much in excess of that number. Operation and maintenance costs seemed
higher (7 mills/kWh) than reported for most units, but this may have been due to
problems with coal burning; however, cost of electricity was 1.4 cents/kWh.

4-2
 AMERICAN ENKA COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Lowland Site______________________________ ________ ______

LOCATION OF PLANT: Lowland, Tennessee 37778________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Fibers_________________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1947/10 MW, 1950/5 MW, 1960/5 MW

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 20 MW THERMAL 549,200 □ Btu/Hr. Kl Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 365 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic_______ OPERATING MODE: Thermal & Electric Load

Followinq
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Turbine Topping. Steam enters backpressure,

extraction turbines at 725°F/410 psi, exits at 20 psi from backpressure
turbine to process, usually condensed from extraction turbines.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

20 PSIG
FEED WATER HEATING
410 PSIG/725 F

COAL

COAL MECHANICAL
DRIVES

COAL REFRIGERATION
MACHINES

150 PSIG

410 PSIG

4-3
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 87,841 MWH

THERMAL ~ 3800 Billion Btu MECHANICAL^S-HS MillionHp.Hr

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 378>493 MWH ~3800 Rj||ion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 49 MW 961 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

____23-2 % ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 82 % NET HEAT RATE 6>430 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typg(s))• Coal________________________________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 7•0 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 7.0 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY- 99.9__ % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 0

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES- None during past year______________________

OPERATING STAFF- 1 Sup. S 7 men per shift, 4 shifts & 4 cleaners,

8 coal unloaders, 15 maintenance & 1 supervisor

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: N/A (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION. N/A (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: Turbogenerators - 0.6 Million;

______ Powerhouse - 5.5 Million________________________________________

FUEL COSTS: 10.1 Million $/Yr. $1-44_______ $/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD:________ 2_________ REVENUE $/Yr • 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated 03 Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Tennessee Valley Authority_______________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Purchase power cost 2.4 centsAWh_____

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Around 75,000 Ibs/hr to process directly, the rest is cogenerated. They

give thermal cost at 1.28 $/Million Btu, 1.44 C/kWh electric.

4-4
 ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.

The cogeneration system at the Anheuser-Busch brewery in St. Louis, Missouri, is

the oldest system covered by this survey. Though two of the four extraction
turbines were added in the 1950' s, the plant began generating electricity at the
end of prohibition. The system is extremely reliable due to a great deal of
redundancy in the steam system — capacity is 960,000 pounds per hour versus a
peak of 540,000 pounds per hour and an average demand of little more than
300.000 pounds per hour. At the same time, process requirements for steam limit
electrical production to levels that allow one or two extraction turbines to be
taken off line for typical loads. As a result, the plant reported no forced
outages — the only disruption of power supplies was due to the inability of the
utility to supply a peak demand.

Anheuser-Busch considers the unit to be economic to operate, though the company

notes that it has amortized most of its investment. Because of supply problems
in the past and increased cost in the future, the company is planning to shift
its fuel mix from natural gas to coal. The company has the capacity to store
20.000 to 40,000 tons of coal, usually low sulfur Kentucky coal which is mixed
with Missouri high sulfur coal.

4-5
 ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: St- Louis Plant_________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: St. Louis, Missouri______________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Beer__________________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): ~ 1929, additions in 1950, 1951

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 27.6 MW THERMAL 960,000 □ Btu/Hr. 0 Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 365 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Semi-Automatic OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Turbine Topping. Turbines #1, 2, 3 & 5 are

extraction turbines; steam input 485 psi/610°F, to process at 9,
55 and 145 psi. Turbine #4 condensing turbine, used for peak demand.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

4-6
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC.71'647 MWH

THFRMAl 2,300 Billion Btu MECHANICAL NA HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 176,067 MWH 2'760 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 28.1 MW ________ 543 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___i2-i7_% ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 77 % NET HEAT RATE 5'600 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED ITypo(s))- Coal, Natural Gas, #6 Fuel Oil_____________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 3.3 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 3.3 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY 99.9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME:_2___

UNSCHEDULED miTAGF*;- None - Equipment overhaul every 4-5 years

STAFF* 1 Stationary Engineer, 6 Others Per Shift

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: n/a (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION. N/A (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: N/A__________________________

FUEL COSTS: 4.3-7.1 Mill. $/Yr. 1.30-1.55/Coal $/Mininn Rt..

1.30-2.60/Gas
AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 0________ REVENUE $/Yr ■ 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated □ Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Unlon Electric___________________________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Utility rates based partially on_____

______ monthly demand charges_________________________________________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Average operating cost estimated at 2.8 cents/kWh.

4-7
 BOWATER SOUTHERN PAPER CORPORATION

The Bowater Southern cogeneration system in Calhoun, Tennessee, illustrates the

advantages associated with utilization of waste fuel. The facility is the least
efficient of those surveyed and has the highest heat rate. This is due to
Bowater's reliance on waste fuels such as bark, wood waste, and black liquor,
which are inefficient to burn (boiler efficiency 55 to 60 percent) but are
extremely inexpensive. Despite the high net heat rate of the unit, with the
average cost of fuel $1 per million Btu, the marginal cost (excluding capital
charges) of a Bowater generated kilowatt hour is 1.1 cents compared to a utility
price of 2.5 cents per kWh. Obviously, it pays to generate with inexpensive
waste fuels — cogeneration merely provides an additional bonus. The use of
waste fuels also protects the company from supply curtailments or sudden price
increases. The oil and gas fired boilers are also capable of burning pulverized
coal, if conditions require the change.

The Bowater system uses extraction condensing turbines to generate much of its
electricity, lowering the heat rate. The company also uses a sizeable fraction
of steam production in the power plant. It also supplies a portion of steam for
process directly. This allows the company greater flexibility in operating the
system but at a lower efficiency. The system is extremely reliable, with the
gnly unscheduled outage in 22 years being the loss of one turbine for 4 months.

4-8
 BOWATER SOUTHERN PAPER CORPORATION

IDENTIFICATION
PLANT NAME:____ Bowater Southern________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT:____ Calhoun, Tennessee______________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Paper_________________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1954/20 MW; 1956/45 mw_____________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 45 MW THERMAL 650,000 □ Btu/Hr. 0 Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24______ Hrs./Day 350 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic_______ OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Topping Cycle. 850 psi/860°F steam into 25 MW

condensing/extraction turbine, 10 MW condensing/extraction turbine,
output steam at 50 psi/320°F. Steam into backpressure turbine,
output 50 psi/320°F or 150 psi/370°F.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

850 PSI6/860°F [
?150 PSIG/3#0*F
—►
SO PSIG/320°F
NATURAL GAS
^6011

BA,tK r~u
WOOD
WASTE
II
LhhJ
»

BLACK
LIQUOR 1_____ 1 ^

Lj
c]
◄----------------

4-9
PROPUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 378'000 MWH

THFRMAl 4,700 Billion Btu MECHANICAL NA______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 982,800 MWH 5,950 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA________ MW NA_________ Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

38-5 % ELECTRIC 817 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 55 % NET HEAT RATE11,19°Btu/KWH

FUEL USED ITypo(s))- Residual Oil, Natural Gas, Wood Waste, Black Liquor

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 1Q-9 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 12 • 7 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY 99+ % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 360 Hrs'

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES- Only major disturbance was loss of 1 turbine for

4 months in 22 years
OPERATING STAFF- 4 Shi fts/shi ft engineer, 13 men & chief engineer,
superintendent, asst, super, (duties include more than
ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS powerhouse)

CAPITAL COSTS na (19___Dollars), EXPANSION NA (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: $227,000 for Turbogenerators___

FUEL COSTS: 10.9 Million $/Yr. 1-00______ $/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD:________ 2________ REVENUE $/Yr : 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated □ Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Tennessee Valiev Authority________________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Purchased power cost was 2.5 C/kWh plus
standby service charge. TVA offered to pay same price for power sold to
utility
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Extremely high parasitic load associated with DEUS. No plans to expand

because of lack of additional cheap fuels. Cost of inplant generation
given as 1.6 cents/kWh.

4-10
 (A PAPER COMPANY IN PENNSYLVANIA)

This company, whose name has been withheld for confidentiality reasons, has been
cogenerating since 1934. Originally, the system was coal-fired, but was con­
verted to residual fuel oil in 1965. The system is relatively simple with one
extraction turbine and one extraction condensing turbine. Reliability is
extremely high; they considered forced outages to be negligible. The company is
pleased with the system, but it is considering converting back to coal. An
anticipated change in product to a higher quality paper will require a higher
proportion of electricity. The company is undecided about whether to increase
electricity generation. The company currently cogenerates about 70 percent of
its electricity needs, and purchases the rest from the local utility.

4-11
 (A PAPER COMPANY IN PENNSYLVANIA)

IDENTIFICATION
PLANT NAME: Not Disclosed___________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT:____ Not Disclosed___________________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Paper Products________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1934/NA; 1948/na__________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 11.0 MW THERMAL 275,000 □ Btu/Hr. 0 Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Day 360 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic________ OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Followinq

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Two extraction steam turbines, inlet steam, 490 psi/660°F, one

turbine partially condensing-outlet to process 50 psi. Originally
coal-fired, converted to residual fuel oil in 1965.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

490 PSI6/660°F

RESIDUAL

50 PSIG

CONDENSATE

4-12
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRICMWH

THFRMAL 1,800_____ Billion Btu MECHANICAL ___E______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 90,720 MWH 1,800 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 12 MW 320 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

____ 11—.% ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

(Avg.)
COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 76 % NET HEAT RATE5,750 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typg(s))- Residual Oil______________________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGFN. 2-7 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT NA_______ Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 99.9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME: JLEf^S

UNSCHEDULED OUTACFS- Negligible________________________________

OPERATING STAFF NA____________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS- NA (\%___ Dollars), EXPANSION NA (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: $325,000/yr (1978)____________

FUEL COSTS: 6.4 Million $/Yr. 2.40_____ $/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 0___________ REVENUE $/Yr • 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated H Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY: Not Disclosed

Purchase block of power not exceeding

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY;.
4 MW, demand charge based on highest usage in given 1/2 hour period per
month

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Company pleased with system — is considering reconversion to coal

(converted to oil in 1965). Cost per kWh 65% of purchased power when
cogenerating. Higher quality paper will require increased electricity per
unit product.

4-13
 GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION - ATLANTIC GELATIN DIVISION

The cogeneration system at the Atlantic Gelatin plant in Woburn, Massachusetts,

is an example of a retrofit system. The company had considered the possibility
of cogenerating as early as 1936 when a new steam boiler facility was constructed.
Despite repeated studies suggesting the technical and economic feasibility of
cogeneration, it was unable to successfully compete for company funding until the
oil embargo of 1973. Finally, a new study was performed and the company added a
7.5 MW extraction-condensing turbine which went into operation in 1978. Originally
fueled by residual oil, the company switched to natural gas in 1979. Three 1 MW
diesel generators are used strictly for back-up. The system supplies the electric
demand of the plant and arrangements have been negotiated with Boston Edison to
sell electricity at a rate equal to about 80 percent of utility fuel costs during
peak and shoulder hours.

The system cost $3.2 million or $427 per kilowatt of capacity. However, the load
factor is only 40 percent. The company expected the system to have a 5-year
payback, which seems very optimistic.

4-14
 GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION - ATLANTIC GELATIN DIVISION

IDENTIFICATION
PLANT NAME: Atlantic Gelatin Division

LOCATION OF PLANT: Woburn, Massachusetts

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Food___________________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): February 1978/7.5 MW ___________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 7.5 MW THERMAL Unknown □ Btu/Hr. □ Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Day 320 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic_______OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Turbine Cycle. Steam turbine 750°F/600 psi

input, output to process at 30 psi, also run in condensing mode 3
diesel generators for backups 1,250 KVA

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

^ ^ 190 PSIG (SAT.) |

30 PSIG
¥

NATURAL GAS

4-15
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRICMWH

THERMAL 588_____ Billion Btu MECHANICAL___2______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 26'000 MWH 890 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 5.0 MW 200 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___ 100 <* ELECTRIC 62 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 73 % NET HEAT RATE7'150 BtuKWH

FUEL USED I Typo( r) )• Natural Gas, Residual Oil___________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. °-93 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 1-4 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY 85 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME: iilil Days

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES:____None_______________________________________________

OPERATING STAFF NA____________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: 3,200,000 (1977 Dollars). EXPANSION. N/A (19___Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: Unknown________________________

FUEL COSTS: NA_________ $/Yr. 2.50________$/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD:_________0________ REVENUE $/Yr • 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated □ Purchase Power H] Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Boston Edison_____________________________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Will buy all excess power during peak

and shoulder periods at 80% of current fossil fuel charges - off peak
purchase option
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4-16
 GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY

The Gulf States Utilities Company, Louisiana Station #1, is an example of the
mutually beneficial operation of a cogeneration plant by a utility for industrial
customers. The Louisiana Station has been cogenerating successfully for almost
half a century. At present, it is supplying steam for neighboring Exxon and
Ethyl Corporation plants while burning waste gas from the Exxon Refinery.

Gulf States has been gradually replacing the older, less efficient boilers and
turbines in the generating station. The utility condenses some steam, but it
uses most of the steam for process. The condensing option along with direct
steam lines for process allow greater flexibility in meeting both steam and
electric demands. The system has proved extremely reliable with the only forced
outage in its history occurring during a storm in 1960. Industrial customers
have expressed confidence in the system — Exxon has a 7-year contract with Gulf
States. The utility considers the station profitable to operate. One problem
for the utility may be the drastic increase in fuel costs — it was purchasing
natural gas at 30 cents per million Btu, but contracts expired in 1979, resulting
in an immediate increase to $2.60 per million Btu. Ironically, this will mean an
increased profit on the cogeneration unit in comparison with gas-fired conven­
tional generation plants owned by Gulf States due to the increase value of the
fuel savings.

4-17
 GULF STATES UTILITY COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME:
Louisiana Station #1

LOCATION OF PLANT: Baton Rouge, Louisiana

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Electricity____________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1930/45 MW, 1938/43-60 MW, 1951/54-129 MW

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 190 MW THERMAL 3.6 MillBtu/Hr. GRbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 365 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Semi-Automatic OPERATING MOPE: NA________________

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:
Rankine Cycle - Steam Turbine Topping. 2.55 MW extraction turbines
steam input 1,500 psig/960°F, 4.20 MW turbines, 1 extraction,
3 extraction/condensing, steam input 600 psig/750°F, steam to process
135 psig/450°F.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

NATURAL GAS, REFINERY GAS

c 135 PSIG/450°F

4-18
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: Et FCTRIC 11 Mill~ MWH

THERMAL 22,200 Billion Btu MECHANICAL NA______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: NA MWH NA Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 140 MW 2^805 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

__ 10° % ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 73 % NET HEAT RATE5'830 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typc(s))- Natural Gas, Refinery Waste Gas____________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 35.6 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 35,6 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY 99-9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 0

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGE*;- 2 days in 40 years electrical storm_____

Qp^ 1STAFF* Technician, 12 inen & 2 supe^rvisoirs pe3r shift

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS- $155/kW (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION NA (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: $3.4 Million___________________

FUEL COSTS: NA_________ $/Yr. 0.27/1978, $/Millinn Rt..

2.60/1980
AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 1-1 Million REVENUE $/Yr - NA
MWH
INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated □ Purchase Power Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)
Gulf States Utility Company
NAME OF UTILITY;

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Owned by Utility

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Steam, some electric sold to Exxon and Ethyl Corp. — they provide most of
the fuel, pay operating costs.

4-19
 HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION

The cogeneration system at the Holly Sugar Corporation plant in Brawley,

California, is somewhat unusual since the plant only operates for four months
per year. This means that, even if it is run at full capacity, the maximum
capacity factor would only be 33 percent, a low figure for an economical invest­
ment. However, the company stated that its motives for cogeneration were
economics and reliability. Holly Sugar mentioned problems with interruptions by
its power company when it was connected in parallel — no problems reported with
cogenerated power supply. Since the company operates the plant during the
summer, it is possible that the seasonal demand results in higher than usual
rates for purchased electricity, which would improve cogeneration economics.

4-20
 HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Brawley_________________________________________ _

LOCATION OF PLANT: Brawley, California______________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Beet Sugar____________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1949/6 MW, new turbine 1978/7.5 MW

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 7.5 MW THERMAL NA □ Btu/Hr. ClLbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 120 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic_________ OPERATING MODE: Electric Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Topping Turbine. Steam enters at 400 psig,

exits to process at 47 psig.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

BOILERS

NATURAL 400 PSIO

NATURAL

1 f 47 PSIG

NATURAL ISO PSIO

4-21
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 16'240 MWH

THERMAL__ 5Z2_______ Billion Btu MECHANICAL Na______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 16,240 MWH 780________ Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 6_________ MW 230 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___ 100___ % ELECTRIC 73 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 70 % NET HEAT RATE7'550 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED < Typp(s))• Natural Gas________________________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN °-9 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 1-1 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY- 99 •9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- NA

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES:___ ____________________________________________________

OPERATING STAFF:______NA______________________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: na (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION, NA (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CDSTS: 0-7 mills/kwh___________________

FUEL COSTS: 2.9 Million $/Yr 2-50________ $/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 0__________ REVENUE $/Yr ■ 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

[1 Isolated □ Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Imperial Irrigation District_____________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Standby charges______________________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Heat rate over estimated because an unknown amount of mechanical power

production is unaccounted for. However, it is probably much less than
electrical production.

4-22
 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC - TOSCO

The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) cogeneration facility at Avon, California, is
one of the oldest systems covered in the survey. Started in 1939, it has operated
for 40 years and it is expected to continue to function for at least another
decade. The facility supplies steam for Tosco Corporation's refinery (owned by
Lyon Oil Company), while burning waste gases from the refinery. The system
consists of a direct-fired boiler feeding an extraction condensing turbine and
generator set. Electricity in excess of Tosco's requirements is fed to PG&E grid.

Not only has the unit performed reliably for 40 years, but PG&E reports that it
is still very reliable, with forced outages being rare events of short duration.
The utility's opinion of its experience with the facility is enthusiastic and
they are extremely impressed with its endurance and reliability. Despite the
unit's low efficiency relative to other cogeneration systems (57 percent), the
utility considers it to be profitable to operate.

4-23
 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC - TOSCO

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME:____ Tosco Corporation/Avon Plant

LOCATION OF PLANT: Avon, California________________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Electricity____________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1939/50 MW_________________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 50 MW THERMAL 340 Mill.B Btu/Hr. □Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 337 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic________ OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Turbine Topping

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

PGA!
TOSCO REFINERY
REFINERY WASTE GASES

PROCESS STEAM

4-24
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 209,000 MWH

THERMAL 1.550 Billion Btu MECHANICAL NA HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION. NA_______ MWH NA Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 50 MW 200 Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

____ HA_% ELECTRIC NA % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 60 % NET HEAT RATE 9'100 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Tyr»(s))- Natural gas, oil, refinery wastes_________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 3.8 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 3.8 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 99,9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME NA

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES- Minor electrical failures, cables, etc.___

OPERATING STAEF- Technician, supervisor, 7 men per shift_________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS- 6.8 Mill. (19 39Do||ars). EXPANSION NA (19___Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: Proprietary (maintenance $700,000)

FUEL COSTS: Proprietary $/Yr. Proprietary $/Milli0n

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 145,000 MWH REVENUE $/Yr • NA

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated □ Purchase Power B Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Parnfir r.aq K entric___________________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Owned by utility______________________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4-25
 POTLATCH CORPORATION

The Potlatch Corporation plant in Lewiston, Idaho, produces bleached pulp,

paperboard, lumber and plywood. Plant operation schedules range from 8,400 to
8,600 hours a year, and the cogeneration system is integrated into plant
operations.

The system is presently fueled by natural gas, wood waste and bark, and black
liquor in a recovery boiler. The system has been very reliable and the company
is generally satisfied with its performance, though the economics of the system
have been disappointing. Since the local electric utility, Washington Water and
Power Company, relies on hydroelectric power generation, it is able to supply
electricity at only 8 mills per kWh, an extremely low price. Despite Potlatch's
extensive use of waste fuels, the high cost of natural gas (40 percent of fuel
consumption for the DEUS), raises generation costs above the utility. However,
the limited availability of hydroelectric power is forcing utilities in the
Northwest to invest in nuclear power and electricity costs are expected to
increase rapidly.

Due to the expected rate increases and the company's satisfaction with its
present cogeneration system. Potlatch is planning to add a 550,000 pound per hour
wood-burning boiler and 30 MW turbogenerator in the early 1980's at a cost of
$89 million. With this addition, the Lewiston facility will be generating almost
all of its electricity demand.

4-26
 POTLATCH CORPORATION

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Lewiston___________________________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Lewiston, Idaho___________________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Paper s Pulp____________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1951/10 mw, 1977/20 mw (19801 s/50 MW)

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 20 MW THERMAL 1.4 Mill .□ Btu/Hr. 0 Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 360 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Manual & AutomaticOPERATING MOPE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam inlet 600 psi/500°F to 10 MW backpressure

turbine, outlet 170 psi saturated, 10 MW extraction turbine, outlet
170 psi saturated and 70 psi saturated.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

170 PSIG ^
600 PSIG/500°F
BOILERS □

70 PSIG ^
BLACK
LIQUOR

70 PSIG
WOODWASTE
BARK
□

4-27
PRODUCTIQN/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 102'Q0° MWH

TNFRMAI 12,500 Billion Btu MECHANICAL NA______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 446,000 MWH 15,300 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA MW NA Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___ 23 % ELECTRIC 82 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 64 % NET HEAT RATE5'700 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typg(s))- Black Liquor, Natural Gas___________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 20 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 25 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY 95 %ANNIIAI MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 2-4 Days

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES- Negligible_______________________________

OPERATING STAFF:____________ NA________________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: NA (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION 89 Million (1980 Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: 3~4 Mills/kwh__________________

FUEL COSTS: NA J/Yr. 3 00 N G- S/Million Rt„

1.20 Total
AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 0__________ REVENUE $/Yr : 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated □ Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY* Wa-Shington Water Power

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: °-8 cents/kWh________________________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Highly reliable. Adding a 550,000 Ibs/hr wood-burning boiler and 30 MW

turbogenerator in early 1980's. Undergenerate because of extremely low
utility rates.

4-28
 RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY

The cogeneration system at the Riverside Cement Company plant at Oro Grande,
California, is the only example of a bottoming cycle in this report. The system
consists of five waste heat boilers rated at 20,000 pounds per hour and two oil-
fired 40,000 pounds per hour boilers. They feed two 7.5 MW condensing turbines.
Since the production of steam in the waste heat boilers is directly related to
the production rate in the cement kilns, the direct-fired boilers are used to
supply additional steam for generating power to meet plant requirements.

The cement kilns are fired with coal and natural gas. In order to reduce oil
consumption, the company is planning to add two 25,000 pounds per hour waste
heat boilers to replace some of the steam from the direct-fired boilers. System
efficiency calculations are irrelevant, because waste heat, which could not be
used for other purposes in appreciable quantities, is a major heat source. The
reported heat rate of 11,000 Btu/kWh is acceptable in this situation, since the
oil heat is a fraction (21 percent) of the energy used for generation.

The company considers their cogeneration system to be very reliable -- outages

occurring only due to problems with the electrical equipment. Riverside
mentioned selling electricity to the utility on rare occasions, but considered
the price paid as well as the cost of cogenerating to be proprietary information.

4-29
 RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Pro Grande Plant________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Oro Grande, California___________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Cement_________________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1954______________________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 15 MW THERMAL N/A □ Btu/Hr. □ Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 365 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Manual____________ OPERATING MODE: Electric Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Rankine Cycle - Steam Bottoming. Five heat recovery boilers —

100,000 pph total and two direct fired boilers — 80,000 pph total
deliver steam 625 psi/790°F to two condensing turbines.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

675 PSIG/790°F

CONDENSATE
TO BOILERS

WASTE HEAT BOILERS

4-30
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC _126'000 MWH

THERMAL____ ^______ Billion Btu MECHANICAL 0______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 126,000 MWH NA________Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 19_________ MW na Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

____ 87____ % ELECTRIC 0 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: NA % NET HEAT RATE11'319Btu/KWH

FUEL USED I Ty p a (s) I • Natural Gas, Coal-Kilns, #2 Oil - Direct-Fired Boilers

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 290 Billion Btu (direct-fired boilers)

TOTAL PLANT NA_________ Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 99-9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME °

UNSCHEDULED OIITAfSEfs- Two — both of short duration______________

^ AT I NG STAFF- Technicians - 18 men for three shifts

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: na (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION. None (19___Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS:. 4.2 mills/kwh_________________

FUEL COSTS: na________ $/Yr. NA_________ $/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: NA_________ REVENUE $/Yr • NA

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated □ Purchase Power □Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Southern California Edison

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Sel1 4-6 ^ at times ~~ price 15

proprietary. Purchased power cost 3.75 cents/kW

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Plan to add two 25,000 Ibs/hour waste heat boilers to replace oil-fired
boilers.

4-31
 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY

The Southland Division of St. Regis Paper Company owns and operates this plant,
producing newsprint and kraft paper. The cogeneration system is quite complex,
employing two 12.5 MW gas turbines whose exhaust is sent to waste heat boilers
producing steam for a high pressure steam header along with gas-fired, black
liquor recovery, bark and sludge fired boilers. Ninety percent of the steam is
then fed into two backpressure turbines, while 10 percent goes to process at
intermediate pressure. Fuel consumption figures were estimated using data from
St. Regis concerning natural gas consumption and waste fuels. St. Regis is
generally happy with the performance of the cogeneration system, but the
company is uncertain about the possibility of expansion due to the rising costs
of natural gas.

The company reports the charges for electricity and steam as 3.6 cents/kWh and
$1 per million Btu of steam, even though they buy natural gas at $2.25 per million
Btu. Based on the amounts of electricity and steam generated, conventional cost
accounting would indicate the marginal cost of electricity (fuel and O&M) should
be around 1.3 cents/kWh, while, even if waste fuels are included in calculating
the marginal cost of steam, it would be at least $1.70 per million Btu. Using
natural gas to fire a boiler would give a marginal cost of steam of $2.67 per
million Btu. Since St. Regis considers cogeneration to be economical, the
reported charges may be the result of internal accounting procedures.

4-32
 ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Houston Mill____________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Houston, Texas___________________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Newsprint______________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1967/97 MW________________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 95 MW THERMAL NA □ Btu/Hr. □ Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 357 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic OPERATING MOPE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Brayton/Rankine Cycle. Exhaust gases from gas turbine used in waste-

heat boilers in tandem with a direct-fired boiler to feed an 875 psig
header-steam fed to two turbogenerators, outlet pressures at 65 psig.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

875 PSIG

4-33
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC. 557,000 MWH

THFRMAI 8,850 Billion Btu MECHANICAL None______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: NR MWH NA Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA________ MW Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___ NA % ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 67 % NET HEAT RATE5'200 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typo(Pi- Natural Gas, Black Liquor, Sludge, Bark_____

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED. COGEN. 16.1 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 16-1 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 99.5 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME: JL_BiYS

UNSCHEDULED OUTACFS- ~ 2 da-Ys per year_________________________

OPERATING STAFF:__________ NA__________________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: NA (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION NA (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: Maintenance cost estimated at

1.25 mills/kWh

FUEL COSTS: NA $/Yr. 115 $ Million Rtu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 0__________ REVENUE $/Yr ■ 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated □Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Houston Power & Light

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Buy Power at 2.3 cents/kWh___________

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4^34
 SHELL OIL COMPANY

The cogeneration system at the Deerpark Refinery of Shell Oil Company is a

striking example of the complexity of some cogeneration systems. Including the
recent expansion, 23 boilers supply five million pounds of high pressure super­
heated steam to backpressure and extraction turbine generator sets, mechanical
drive turbines and direct process steam. There are also some gas turbines with
waste heat boilers supplying additional steam and electricity. Shell was not
willing to provide more than a general description of the system, and it was
necessary to extrapolate some data. Mechanical drive power was assumed to be
equal to electrical generation before expansion, boiler efficiency was assumed
to be about 80 percent for the older boilers, and some preheating of condensate
return streams from waste heat was calculated using the detailed figures avail­
able from Shell concerning the expected performance of the recent expansion.

Shell is obviously satisfied with its cogeneration system, considering that the
company was willing to invest $125 million for the latest expansion which went
on-line in 1979. Refinery gas and pyrolysis pitch account for more than 50 per­
cent of the fuel for the DEUS, even including the latest expansion. The
redundancy of the system is responsible for its high degree of reliability, and
the desire to retain this quality has discouraged Shell from retiring the gas
turbines and older boilers despite their relative inefficiency. Shell expects
the system to stay economic for another decade or two, but they expect that the
eventual utility shift to coal and nuclear generation will make the cogeneration
system obsolete.
 SHELL OIL U.S.A.

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Deerpark Refinery _________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Deerpark, Texas__________________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Refined Petroleum Products______________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): ~ 1941/NA, others, 1979/100 MW______

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 140 MW THERMAL NA □ Btu/Hr. □ Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 364 Days/Year

CONTROL MOPE: Manual/Automatic OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Dual system. Gas turbines with waste heat recovery producing steam
at 250 psi. The combination of boilers producing various steam
pressures for turbine input-average, 1250 psi/1000°F (output 650 psi/
750°F), and other process steams.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

4-36
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS
ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 342,634 MWH

THERMAI 32,600 Billion Btu MECHANICAL ~ 500 Million HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 1.650,000 MWH NA________ Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA MW NA Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___ 21_____% ELECTRIC na % THERMAL

,600
COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: ~76 % NET HEAT RATE______ Btu/KWH

FUEL USED ITypa(s))- Refinery Gas, Natural Gas__________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 46 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT_______ N*_______ Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY- 997 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 30 Hours

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES* ^ ^ year for each holler (23) , none for system

OPERATING STAFF- 4 men per shift new units, unknown for total system

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: na (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION.125 Mil1- (1979Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: 4.9 mills/kwh for new unit______

FUEL COSTS: NA_________ $/Yr. 2.40 $/Millinn Rtu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD:_______ 0_________ REVENUE $/Yr- 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated □Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Houston Power S Light____________________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Purchased power cost (150 MW on a_____

continuous basis) =2.2 cents/kWh. They are negotiating terms for

interruptible sales with the utility.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Expansion in 1979 added 2 million Ibs/hr, 60 MW to DEUS capacity.

4-37
 CELANESE CHEMICAL COMPANY - SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

The Celanese cogeneration plant has only recently begun operation and,
unfortunately, it has not been operating for a sufficient length of time to
generate data. Therefore, data on heat balance and economics have been estimated
from articles published jointly by Celanese Chemical Company and Southwestern
Public Service Company.

The plant utilizes two 650,000 pounds per hour pulverized coal-fired boilers,
which feed steam to a 30 MW backpressure turbine and generator. Since the
capacity of the system exceeds the process demands of the plant, approximately
20 percent of the steam produced will be used for feedwater heating after passing
through the turbine. This allows maximum electrical generation for the present
while providing sufficient excess capacity for expansion. A load shedding system
was installed in case of a boiler outage, while a high-speed bypass expansion
valve system guards against turbine trip-out. Four existing gas-fired boilers
will be maintained in a semi-mothballed condition in case of a coal boiler
outage.

Celanese owns the boilers but Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) retains
ownership of the turbogenerator. It has been arranged that Celanese would sell
steam to SPS, while the utility would sell part of the electricity back to
Celanese for 2.6 cents/kWh, including a standby power charge. The return for
Celanese was calculated to be almost 30 percent — however, they assumed that the
plant would operate 90 percent of the time at 100 percent capacity — which
appears to be overly optimistic.

4-38
 CELANESE CHEMICAL COMPANY - SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: PamPa plant_____________________________________________________________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Pampa, Texas______________________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT:____________________________________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1979/30 mw_______________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 30 MW THERMAL 1-3 Mill Btu/Hr. 0 Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Pay 329 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic_________OPERATING MODE: Electric Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Two 650,000 Ibs/hr pulverized coal-fired boilers, steam at 1,450 psig/

950°F to extraction turbine. Steam to process at 650 psig/750°F.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

Y TO FEED WATtR HEATING

1450 PSIO/950°F
□ 650 PSIG/750°F.

PULVERIZED
COAL
*□
PULVERIZER
COAL

4-39
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 189'000 MWH

THERMAL ________ Billion Btu MECHANICAL NA__________ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: NA MWH NA Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA________ MW Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___ NA % ELECTRIC na % thermal

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 67 % NET HEAT RATE4'800 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Type(s))- Lew sulfur Wyoming coal (assuming 75% efficiency)

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 14.4 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT NA________ Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 90 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 2~4 Weeks

UNSCHEDULED OUTAfiES- NA__________________________________________________

OPERATING STAFF:__________ NA__________________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: 70 Million(1979 Dollars). EXPANSION NA (j 9___Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: ~2-7 mills Per kwh_________________

FUEL COSTS: NA $/Yr. 1-20 $ Millinn Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: NA_______ REVENUE $/Yr : NA

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated □ Purchase Power ED Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Southwestern Public Service Company______________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Normal electricity charge 3.0 C/kWh,

power from plant to be sold to Celanese at 2 ■ 6 C/kWh including 0.53 C/kWh
for standby.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

*$15 million for cogeneration, rest for conversion to coal. Celanese owns
boilers -- SPS owns turbogenerator. Rate of return for Celanese to be
> 20%, for SPS > 15%.

4-40
 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY - SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

The steam generation plant at the Phillips Petroleum Company, Butadiene plant has
entered into an unusual arrangement with Southwestern Public Service Company in
1966. A 33 MW gas turbine, owned by the utility, was connected with the steam
plant. Exhaust gases from the gas turbine were fed to the seven 250,000 pound
per hour boilers and one 400,000 pound per hour boiler. The exhaust gases were
used as combustion air. Fuel savings have ranged from 15 to 25 percent.

Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain details of the system from

Phillips. Southwestern Public Service Company supplied some information
describing the gas turbine operation. The overall efficiency of the gas turbine
was reported as 87 percent. The boilers' efficiency was 83 percent before the
cogeneration system was built.

4-41
 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY - SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME:
Plains Butadiene Plant

LOCATION OF PLANT:_____ Borger , Texas__________________________________ _

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Butadiene______________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1966/32.85 mw________________ ______

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 32.85 MW THERMAL290 Mill. ED Btu/Hr. OLbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Day 365 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Semi-Automatic OPERATING MODE: Electric Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Brayton Topping - Gas Turbine. Exhaust gases used as combustion air

in 8 nonpressurized boilers.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

COMBUSTION
TO PROCESS

NATURAL □
GAS

4-42
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC NA MWH

THERMAL____ ^______ Billion Btu MECHANICAL nA HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: NA - MWH NA Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA MW Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

____NA____ % ELECTRIC na % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: ~70 % NET HEAT RATE~7'030Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typ<»(s))- Natural Gas________________________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. NA_________ Btu

TOTAL PLANT________ NA Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 99.9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 4-6 DayS

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES: None_______________________________________

OPERATING STAFF: NA______________________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: na (19___ Dollars), EXPANSION. NA (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS:____ NA____________________________

FUEL COSTS. na________ $/Yr. NA________ $/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD:________ ^_______ REVENUE $/Yr • NA

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated □ Purchase Power ID Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Southwestern Public Service Company______________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Power feeds into grid — gas turbine

owned by SPS . ____________________________________________ _______

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4-43
 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

The Garden State Generating Station of Southern California Edison (SCE) was the
utility's first venture into cogeneration. The customer is the Pomona plant of
the Garden State Paper Company. The system consists of a 14.5 MW gas turbine
generator unit and a waste heat boiler equipped with supplementary firing. The
boiler is capable of supplying the paper company's steam requirements without
utilization of the gas turbine exhaust. The boiler is available for 8,600 hours
per year, but the turbine for only 8,100 hours. This is still an availability
factor of 94 percent, superior to most central power generation plants.

Even though the system has a relatively high net heat rate (6,330 Btu/kWh), it
is still much better than Southern California Edison could achieve with a
conventional generating unit. Assuming 10,200 Btu/kWh for conventional
generation and a fuel cost of $2.50 per million Btu, SCE saves $750,000 per year
on fuel costs on the unit, if it is assumed that the utility breaks even on
steam sales.

4-44
 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Garden State Energy Service Facility

LOCATION OF PLANT: Pomona, California______________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Electricity____________________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1967_____________________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 14.5 MW THERMAL 105,000 □ Btu/Hr. 0Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Day 328 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Semi-Automatic OPERATING MODE: Electric & Thermal Load

Following
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Brayton Cycle - Combustion turbine with waste heat boiler equipped for
supplementary firing. Capacity is 120,000 pph at 75 psig.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

BOILER
EXHAUST
GASES 75 PSIG

NATURAL

NATURAL

4-45
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 78'000 MWH

THERMAL 780_______ Billion Btu MECHANICAL 0_______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: NA MWH NA_________ Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA________ MW NA Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

___NA % ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 65 % NET HEAT RATE 6'330 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typg(s))- Natural Gas, #2 Oil________________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN. 1 •6 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 1-6 TrillionBtu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 94 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 5% Boiler'

10% Generator
UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES:____ Et_________________________________________________

OPERATING STAFF- Five men________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: 2.5 Mill. (1967 Do||ars) EXPANSION. NA (19___Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: Proprietary__________________________

FUEL COSTS: Proprietary $/Yr. Proprietary $/Millinn Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: NA_________ REVENUE $/Yr - NA

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated □ Purchase Power 0 Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Southern California Edison______________________

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: Heat sold to Garden State Paper Company

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4-46
 STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY

The information for the Stauffer Chemical Company plant in Henderson, Nebraska,
was very scanty, consisting of a description of the gas turbine in a Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission Docket and a telephone conversation with the power
plant manager. The system utilizes a gas turbine with exhaust gases feeding
into a waste heat boiler with supplementary firing. Steam from this boiler is
combined with steam from a direct-fired boiler and fed into a backpressure
turbine to produce additional electricity. The exhaust from the backpressure
turbine is routed to process steam. There are a number of advantages to this
type of system. It can produce electricity at a lower heat rate than a gas
turbine while producing more electricity per unit of steam than a normal Rankine
cycle. A combined cycle system provides additional flexibility in simultaneous
management of electric and steam demand — by adjusting the firing rate of the
gas turbine and the direct-fired boiler, the electric/steam ratio can be manipu­
lated with a minimum loss in system efficiency. It also provides increased
reliability, since the loss of one component would still allow production of
steam and electricity.

4-47
 STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Henderson Plant_________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Henderson, Nevada_____________________________ _

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Caustic Soda, Chlorine_________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1968/29 mw_________________________

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 27 MW THERMAL 290,000 □ Btu/Hr. 0 Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Day 360 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE: Automatic__________ OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Combined Cycle - gas turbine 13 MW summer, 17.5 winter, exhausts to

waste heat boiler with supplementary firing, outlet steam
860 psig/830°F to common header supplied by direct-fired boiler to
backpressure turbine 12.1 MW, with outlet steam to process 150 psig/
485°F.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

NATURAL
GAS *o—•-
□

4-48
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS
ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: ELECTRIC 180,000 MWH

THFRMAI 2,100 Billion Btu MECHANICAL 0______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: 360,000 MWH 1>400 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: NA________ MW Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

______5Q_.% ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 74 % NET HEAT RATE 5'050 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED (Typp(s))- Natural Gas________________________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGEN 3.6 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 3.6 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY:_2L_%ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME1-2 days'

1 mo./5 yrs.
UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES:__ _____________________________________________________

OPERATING STAFF:_______ M_____________________________________________________

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: 4 Million (19 68 Dollars). EXPANSION. NA (19___Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS:. ___________________________________

FUEL COSTS: NR_______ $/Yr. 2.80________$/Million Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD:_______ 0_________ REVENUE $/Yr • 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ isolated 0 Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Nevada Power Company, Bureau of Reclamation Hydroelectric

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY: 2.8-3.0 cents/kwh plan shutdown for

off-peak months.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

The Union Carbide plant in Texas City produces a wide variety of products,
ranging from alcohols and olefins to plastics. Corresponding to the size and
function of the plant, the cogeneration system, incorporated in the design since
its inception in 1941, is a large, sprawling system consisting of gas turbines
and steam turbines located in four different powerhouses. Union Carbide considers
the system very reliable and is pleased with the operation of the system. Despite
the fact that some of the boilers are almost 40 years old, they are still
supplying steam and have an expected life of 15 to 20 additional years. The
only problem is with gas turbine performance, since they require delicate control
for optimum generation.

The gas turbines are equipped with heat recovery boilers and have capacities of
13 to 15 MW. Steam turbine sizes are 3, 4, and 9 MW. Unfortunately, Union
Carbide was reticent in providing a detailed description of the system. They
also considered natural gas consumption, total costs and operation and mainten­
ance costs to be proprietary. Therefore, it was necessary to estimate fuel
consumption and system efficiency using heat rate, the partial description given,
and the figure given by Union Carbide for process steam use.

Union Carbide is satisfied with its return on past investments, but feels that
the rise in natural gas prices makes future cogeneration questionable, especially
with gas turbines. The company is now concentrating on heat recovery applications
and waste heat utilization.

4-50
 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

IDENTIFICATION

PLANT NAME: Texas city Plant_________________________________________________

LOCATION OF PLANT: Texas City, Texas_______________________________

PRIMARY PRODUCT OF PLANT: Industrial Chemicals___________________

COGENERATION STARTED (Date/Size): 1941/na, 1947, 1953, 1965, 1967/na

COGENERATION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS

CAPACITY: ELECTRIC 70 MW THERMAL NA □ Btu/Hr. □ Lbs./Hr.

OPERATING SCHEDULE: 24 Hrs./Day 365 Days/Year

CONTROL MODE:_______ NA_____________OPERATING MODE: Thermal Load Following

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION:

Brayton Cycle - gas turbine with exhaust gases to waste heat boilers
producing process steam. Rankine cycle - natural gas fired boilers
produce steam at 1000 psig/600°F to turbogenerators exhaust steam at
200 psig and 70 psig for process.

SCHEMATIC OF THE COGENERATION SYSTEM

NATURAL GAS

WASTE HEAT
BOILER

1000 PSIG/600°F

600 PSIG

70 PSIG

2 0 PSIG

CONDENSATE

4-51
PRODUCTION/USE CHARACTERISTICS

ANNUAL COGENERATION SYSTEM OUTPUTS: FI FCTRIC 386,478 MWH

THFRMAI 15,600 Billion Btu MECHANICAL 0_______ HP-Hr.

TOTAL PLANT CONSUMPTION: NA MWH 1,300 Billion Btu

PEAK PLANT DEMAND: 40 MW NA Million Btu/Hr.

PERCENT ANNUAL DEMANDS MET BY COGENERATION:

____100___ % ELECTRIC 100 % THERMAL

COGENERATION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 68 % NET HEAT RATE O'600 Btu/KWH

FUEL USED ITypgts))- Natural Gas, Oil as backup_________________

AMOUNT OF FUEL USED: COGFN. 25 Trillion Btu

TOTAL PLANT 25 Trillion Btu
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

SYSTEM AVAILABILITY: 99.9 % ANNUAL MAINTENANCE DOWNTIME- 0

UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES: Electrical failures, a boiler explosion late 1940's

STAFF' 40, 9 per shift, 40 maintenance, 10 supervisory

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

CAPITAL COSTS: 74 Million( jg 41 Do||ars). EXPANSION_____________ (19___ Dollars)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS: Proprietary____________________

FUEL COSTS: Proprietary $/Yr. 2-3 Gas, 4 Oil $/Mi||inn Btu

AMOUNT OF ELECTRICITY SOLD: 0__________ REVENUE $/Yr • 0

INTEGRATION WITH UTILITY

□ Isolated 0 Purchase Power □ Interchange

(Parallel Operation) (Grid-Integrated)

NAME OF UTILITY- Community Public Service Corporation

RELATIONSHIP WITH UTILITY- Purchase non-interruptible off-peak

power, 2.7-2.8 cents/kWh. Would like to sell electricity to utility
but regulations prohibit sales.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

4-52
 SECTION 5

STATISTICAL DATA ON COGENERATION

INVENTORY OF COGENERATION FACILITIES

Using a variety of primary and secondary information sources. Synergic Resources

Corporation has developed an inventory of known cogeneration facilities with a
capacity greater than 10 MW. The principal sources were:

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

• Department of Energy

• Electric Utilities

• Gas Utilities

• Equipment Manufacturers

• DOE Contractor Studies

• Trade Publications Such as Energy User News

• State Energy Agencies and RegulatoryCommissions

Table 5-1 shows the inventory of known cogeneration facilities. This inventory is
part of a Cogeneration Data Base being developed for EPRI. Efforts are currently
underway to expand this inventory and develop additional information on each
facility.

Table 5-2 shows a second list of cogenerators (using natural gas) that have filed,
or have indicated their intention to file, to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) for a cogeneration exemption. Some of these cogenerators are
already included in the inventory in Table 5-1. Additional information will be
gathered when the applications for the cogeneration exemption are completed, and
will be included in the Cogeneration Data Base.

DATA ON INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

Industrial generation of electricity is reported on Form 4 to FERC. While Form 4

does not provide a complete coverage of all industrial generation, it does provide

5-1
 Table 5-1

INVENTORY OF KNOWN COGENERATORS

TYPE OF CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM LOCATION
SYSTEM* (MW)

NEW ENGLAND
Atlantic Gelatin Woburn, MA S 7.5
General Electric Lyon, MA S 65.0
Greater Lawrence Industrial Lawrence, MA S 17.0
Assoc.
James River Mass., Inc. Fitchburg, MA s 13.5
Mass. Bay Transit Authority South Boston, MA s 120.0
United Shoe Machinery Beverly, MA s 10.0
TOTAL NEW ENGLAND 233.0

MIDDLE ATLANTIC
AMSTAR Brooklyn, NY s 10.4
Bethlehem Steel Lackawanna, NY s 47.5
Eastman Kodak Rochester, NY s 113.7
International Paper Hudson, NY s 27.5
International Paper Ticonderoga, NY s 30.0
Procter & Gamble Port Ivory, NY s 10.5
American Cyanamid Bound Brook, NJ s 14.5
ARCO Polymers, Inc. Monaca, PA s 35.0
Avtex Fibers Meadville, PA s 17.0
Bethlehem Steel Bethlehem, PA S,I 44.0
Container Corp. of America Philadelphia, PA s 11.0
Crucible Steel Midland, PA s 24.0
Gulf Oil Philadelphia, PA s 36.0
Scott Paper Chester, PA s 10.4
Shenago, Inc. Pittsburgh, PA s 10.0
St. Joseph Zinc Josephtown, PA s 100.0
U.S. Government Philadelphia, PA s 22.5
U.S. Steel Clairton, PA s 35.0
U.S. Steel Fairless, PA s 60.0
U.S. Steel Northhampton, PA s 10.0
U.S. Steel Pittsburgh, PA s 65.0
U.S. Steel Pittsburgh, PA s 62.0
Westvaco Tyrone, PA s 17.1
TOTAL MIDDLE ATLANTIC 813.1

5-2
 Table 5-1 (Continued)

INVENTORY OF KNOWN COGENERATORS

NAME OF FIRM TYPE OF CAPACITY

LOCATION
SYSTEM* (MW)

EAST NORTH CENTRAL

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Akron, OH S 64.5
Republic Steel Cleveland, OH S 42.5
Union Carbide Cleveland, OH S 160.0
U.S. Steel Lorain, OH S 28.0
Alton Box Board Company Alton, IL S 23.2
Caterpillar Tractor , IL S 10.0
CPC International Pekin, IL S 27.0
Deere & Company East Moline, IL S 10.0
Granite City Steel Granite City, IL S 21.0
Inland Steel Chicago, IL S 212.5
Libby-Owens-Ford Glass Ottawa, IL S 31.9
Marathon Oil Robinson, IL S 12.0
Monsanto Chemical Sauget, IL S 13.5
Shell Oil Wood River, IL S 20.0
U.S. Industrial Chemicals Tuscola, IL S 12.5
U.S. Steel South, IL S 105.5
Western Electric Hawthorne, IL S 52.5
Dow Chemical Ludington, MI S 17.5
Ford Motor Company River Rouge, MI S 345.0
Georgia Pacific Kalamazoo, MI S 20.0
White Pine Copper White Pine, MI S 52.0
Wyandotte Detroit, MI s 45.0
Allis Chalmers , WI s 13.9
TOTAL EAST NORTH CENTRAL 1,340.0

WEST NORTH CENTRAL

Amoco Oil Sugar Creek, MO s 21.0
Anheuser-Busch St. Louis, MO s 23.5
Franklin Station Franklin, MN S 11.4
Hercules Louisiana, MO s 22.5
Monsanto St. Louis, MO S 100.0
TOTAL WEST NORTH CENTRAL 178.4

5-3
 Table 5-1 (Continued)

INVENTORY OF KNOWN COGENERATORS

TYPE OF CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM LOCATION
SYSTEM* (MW)

SOUTH ATLANTIC
DuPont Wilmington, DE S 22.5
Getty Oil Delaware City, DE S 100.0
Bethlehem Steel Sparrow Point, MD s 140.0
Cheasapeake Corp. of Virginia West Point, MD s 56.7
American Sugar Baltimore, MD s 10.0
U.S. Naval Gun Factory Washington, DC s 12.5
Dan River Mills Danville, VA s 19.4
Union Camp Franklin, VA s 81.5
Westvaco Covington, VA s 65.0
R. J. Reynolds Winston-Salem, NC s 32.5
Brunswick Pulp Paper Brunswick, GA s 26.0
Buckeye Cellulose Joley, FL s 32.5
Monsanto Textiles Pensacola, FL s 16.3
Sugar Growers of Florida Bella Glade, FL s 15.0
TOTAL SOUTH ATLANTIC 629.9

EAST SOUTH CENTRAL

American Enka Lowland, TN s 20.0
Bowater Southern Calhoun, TN s 24.0
North American Rayon E1iz abe thtown, TN s 24.0
W. R. Grace Memphis, TN s 35.0
Tennessee Eastman Kingsport, TN s 141.5
Alcoa Mobile, AL s 22.5
International Paper Mobile, AL s 98.5
Scott Paper Birmingham, AL s 10.0
U.S. Steel Birmingham, AL s 20.0
Union Camp , AL s 25.0
Alcoa , AK s 22.5
Reynolds Metals , AK s 18.0
TOTAL EAST SOUTH CENTRAL 461.0

5-4
 Table 5-1 (Continued)

INVENTORY OF KNOWN COGENERATORS

TYPE OF CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM LOCATION
SYSTEM* (MW)

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

Allied Chemical Baton Rouge, LA S 20.5
Boise Southern Derider, LA S 52.5
Calcasieu Paper Company Elizabeth, LA S 12.5
Continental Oil Company Lake Charles, LA S 11.8
Copolymer Rubber Baton Rouge, LA S 14.0
Crown Zellerbach Bogalusa, LA S 42.0
Gulf States Utilities Baton Rouge, LA S 190.0
Hercules Lake Charles, LA S 13.0
Imperial Chemical Baton Rouge, LA S 80.0
International Paper Bastrop, LA S 56.0
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Baton Rouge, LA S 24.0
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Chalmette, LA S,I 501.2
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Gramercy, LA S,G 86.3
Olinkraft West Monroe, LA S 53.0
Olin Lake Charles, LA S 14.0
PPG Industries Lake Charles, LA S,G 186.2
Alcoa Point Comfort, TX S,I 354.4
Amoco Oil Texas City, TX S,G 74.6
Celanese Chemical Pampa, TX S 30.0
Diamond Shamrock Deer Park, TX S 42.5
Dow Chemical Freeport, TX S 290.0
Eastex Evadale, TX S 42.0
E. I. DuPont de Nemours Sabine River, TX S 15.0
Gulf Oil Port Arthur, TX S, G 107.1
International Paper Texarkana, TX S 65.0
Lone Star Steel Lone Star, TX S 32.9
Mobil Oil Beaumont, TX S 135.0
Petro-Texas Chemical Houston, TX S 70.0
Phillips Butadiene Borger, TX G 33.0
PPG Industries Corpus Christi, TX S 37.5
Reynolds Metals Corpus Christi, TX I 235.1
Reynolds Metals Ingleside, TX S,G 39.0
Shell Oil Houston, TX S, G 60.0
St. Regis Houston, TX G, S 80.0
St. Regis Lufkin, TX S 78.5
Union Carbide Texas City, TX G, S 148.0
TOTAL WEST SOUTH CENTRAL 3,326.6

5-5
 Table 5-1 (Continued)

INVENTORY OF KNOWN COGENERATORS

TYPE OF CAPACITY
NAME OF FIRM LOCATION
SYSTEM* (MW)

MOUNTAIN
FMC Green River, WY S 42.0
Amalgamated Twin Falls, ID S 10.9
Potlatch Lewiston, ID S 10.0
Stauffer Chemical Henderson, NV S, G 24.0
TOTAL MOUNTAIN 86.9

PACIFIC
Crown Zellerback Omak, WA S 12.0
ITT Rayonier Gray Harbor, WA S 10.8
Longview Fiber Longview, WA S 71.0
Simpson Timber Simpson, WA S 11.0
Weyerhauser Longview, WA S 81.0
Weyerhauser Aberdeen, WA S 15.0
Weyerhauser Everett, WA s 12.5
Brook Scanlon Bend, OR s 17.5
Roseburg Lumber Dillard, OR s 45.0
Weyerhauser Springfield, OR s 25.0
Applied Energy San Diego, CA s 14.0
Dow Chemical Pittsburgh, CA G 48.0
Kerr-McGee Trona, CA s 100.1
Holly Sugar Brawley, CA s 7.5
Louisiana-Pacific Eureka, CA s 27.5
Riverside Cement Oro Grande, CA s 15.0
Pacific Gas & Electric Martinez, CA s 46.0
Pacific Gas & Electric Oleum, CA s 87.0
Pacific Gas & Electric Avon, CA s 50.0
Stauffer Chemical Pinnades, CA G 15.5
Georgia Pacific Fort Bragg, CA S 14.0
TOTAL PACIFIC 725.4

TOTAL U.S. 7,794.3

*S = Steam Turbine; G = Gas Turbine; I = Internal Combustion.

5-6
 Table 5-2

LIST OF NATURAL GAS USING COGENERATORS FILING FOR COGENERATION

EXEMPTION TO FERC

NAME OF COGENERATOR NATURAL GAS SUPPLIER NAME OF COGENERATOR NATURAL GAS SUPPLIER

Allied Chemical Corp. Mountain Fuel Gillette Co. Boston Gas

Allis Chalmers Corp. Wisconsin Gas Co. Goodyear Tire East Ohio
Alcoa - Arkansas ARKLA Greater Lawrence Bay State

Alcoa - Mobile United Gas Hercules Inc. Atlanta Gas

American Can Co. Wise Public Service - Inland Steel Co. NIPSCO
Southern Natural Gas
International Salt Co. United Gas
American Cyanamid - Bound Public Service Electric &
Jones & Laughlin Steel NIPSCO
Brook Gas
Kennecott Minerals Co. El Paso
American Cyanamid - Atlanta Gas Co.
Savannah Kerr McGee Chemical Pacific Gas & Electric

American Optical Co. Boston Gas McLouth Steel Corp. Michigan Consolidated

AMOCO Oil Mississippi River Trans- Molycorp Inc. Gas Co. of New Mexico
mission
Monsanto Co. Illinois Power - Laclade -
Asmara Oil Public Service - Colorado United

Avtex Fibers Inc. National Fuel Gas Morton Salt ARKLA - Entex

BASF Wyandotte Michigan Consolidated Gas Morton Salt National Fuel - Pacific Gas
& Electric
Bethlehem Steel - Bethlehem United Gas Industries
N.L. Industries Mountain Fuel
Bethlehem Steel - Burns NIPSCO
Harbor Parke Davis - Warner Michigan Power
Lambert
Bethlehem Steel - Lackanana National Fuel Distribution
Co. Peachtree General - Cont. Georgia Natural Gas
Forest
Bethlehem Steel - Spassons Baltimore Gas & Electric
Point Phelps Dodge Corp. El Paso

Boise Southern United Gas Proctor & Gamble Gas Service Co.

Buckeye Cellulose Florida Gas Republic Steel East Ohio Gas

Celotex Corp. .Cincinnati Riegal Products Elizabethtown Gas

Champion International Michigan Power Reynolds Metals ARKLA

Chevron USA Inc. Pacific Gas & Electric Riverside Cement - Amcord Pacific Gas & Electric

Carrier Corp. Peoples Natural Gas South Carolina Industries Carolina Pipeline

Colgate Palmolive Indiana Gas Stauffer Chemical Co. Mountain - Southwest

Consolidated Aluminum Michigan Consolidated Tennessee Eastman East Tennessee

Dow Chemical Consumers Power Union Camp Corp. Alabama Gas

Eastman Gelatine Boston Gas U.S. Steel East Ohio

Eastman Kodak Western Slope U.S. Steel Equitable - Carnegie

Energy Cooperative NIPSCO Universal Atlas Cement Cities Service

FMC Corp. Alkali Mountain Fuel Upson Co. N.Y. State Gas & Electric

Ford Motor Michigan Consolidated Utah Copper - Kennecott Mountain Fuel

Franklin Heating Peoples Natural Gas Warner Lambert - Parke Michigan Consolidated
Davis
Gates Rubber Co. Public Service
Western Electric Peoples - NIGAS
General Electric Boston Gas# NIGAS
White Pine Copper Michigan Power
Georgia Kraft Southeast Alabama

Georgia Pacific MRT - Consumers Power

Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

5-7
plant level information on capacity, type of generating system, and annual
generation. The detailed Form 4 data for 1978 was obtained from FERC and analyzed
to develop the statistical summary in Table 5-3, which shows the number of plants,
capacity and 1978 generation by Census Region.

The industrial firms reporting on Form 4 were classified by two-digit SIC

(Standard Industrial Classification) Code into the following major energy-intensive
industry groups:

• SIC 20 - Food and Kindred Products

• SIC 22 - Textiles

• SIC 26 - Pulp and Paper

• SIC 28 - Chemicals and Allied Products

• SIC 29 - Petroleum Refining

• SIC 32 - Stone, Clay and Glass

• SIC 33 - Primary Metals

Table 5-4 shows the 1978 capacity and generation by SIC Code by Census Region.

POWER PURCHASES BY UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATORS

The major electric utilities (Class A and B) report purchased power (amount and
cost) to FERC on Form 1. The 1976, 1977 and 1978 forms filed by the Class A and
B utilities were examined to develop the information provided in Table 5-5.
Unfortunately, the FERC Public Information Room does not have a complete set of
all forms filed by the utilities — hence the gaps in Table 5-5.

DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY/STEAM USE RATIO FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS

Table 5-6 gives the distribution of electricity to steam ratio of a number of

large industrial plants as reported by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This ratio,
commonly known as the alpha value, is defined as the Btu used as electricity/Btu
used as steam. The importance of this ratio is its implication for the type and
quantity of feasible cogeneration technologies and the resultant industrial
electricity generation.

Gas turbine topping cycles will generally produce a higher ratio of electricity to
steam than a steam turbine topping cycle, but with a lower system efficiency. Gas
turbines are limited (within current state-of-the-art systems) to natural gas or

5-8
 Table 5-3

INDUSTRIAL GENERATION BY REGION AND TYPE OF GENERATION EQUIPMENT

(1978)

TYPE OF GENERATION
REGION TOTAL*
HYDRO STEAM GAS TURBINE INTERNAL COMB.

NUMBER OF PLANTS
New England 8 26 0 6 38
Middle Atlantic 4 46 0 4 51
East North Central 3 76 1 7 86
West North Central 4 21 0 4 29
Wouth Atlantic 7 74 0 7 86
East South Central 1 24 0 2 27
West South Central 1 57 13 10 73
Mountain 3 25 0 11 38
Pacific 6 33 2 5 46
U.S. TOTAL 37 382 16 56 474

CAPACITY OF PLANTS
(MW)
New England 240 937 0 8 1,186
Middle Atlantic 44 1,561 0 62 1,668
East North Central 88 3,777 20 50 3,935
West North Central 43 723 0 17 783
South Atlantic 161 2,660 0 15 2,836
East South Central 8 803 0 3 813
West South Central 1 4,403 574 963 5,941
Mountain 4 856 0 185 1,045
Pacific 58 989 64 24 1,135
U.S. TOTAL 647 16,710 657 1,328 19,342

ANNUAL GENERATION**
New England 1,267 3,023 0 1 4,290
Middle Atlantic 245 6,410 0 293 6,948
East North Central 415 15,162 0 86 15,663
West North Central 191 3,303 0 43 3,536
South Atlantic 697 13,726 0 24 14,447
East South Central 338 4,413 0 7 4,488
West South Central 5 17,309 3,022 2,689 23,024
Mountain 17 3,256 0 314 3,581
Pacific 233 2,959 98 94 3,383
U.S. TOTAL 3,407 69,289 3,120 3,549 79,366

*Totals may not equal sum of the respective row since some industrial plants
employ combinations of different types of generation techniques.

**In Thousand MWH.

5-9
 Table 5-4

INDUSTRIAL GENERATING CAPACITY BY SIC CODE

SIC CODE*

20 26 28 29 32 33 99

NUMBER OF PLANTS
New England 0 9 1 0 0 1 9
Middle Atlantic 2 10 4 3 1 17 8
East North Central 6 22 7 5 4 16 12
West North Central 2 2 1 2 1 2 6
South Atlantic 2 20 15 0 2 3 14
East South Central 0 10 2 0 0 6 2
West South Central 0 13 19 16 5 15 2
Mountain 1 2 3 0 0 16 1
Pacific 1 14 3 1 1 0 3

TOTAL 14 102 45 27 14 76 57

CAPACITY (MW)
New England 0 413 11 0 0 11 347
Middle Atlantic 21 197 115 93 15 718 246
East North Central 101 556 452 132 186 1,380 638
West North Central 49 54 23 41 12 30‘ 399
South Atlantic 26 1,299 409 0 134 267 366
East South Central 0 383 162 0 0 155 49
West South Central 0 700 1,891 826 413 1,436 341
Mountain 11 37 84 0 0 755 14
Pacific 13 352 164 20 15 0 68

TOTAL 221 3,991 3,321 1,112 775 4,752 2,468

*SIC Codes:

20 - Food and Kindred Products

26 - Pulp and Paper
28 - Chemicals and Allied Products
29 - Petroleum Refining
32 - Stone, Clay and Glass
33 - Primary Metals
99 - All Other

5-10
 Table 5-5

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
TYPE* AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Alabama Power Aluminum Co. of America DP 3,812 0.19 2,452 0.19 856 0.25
Republic Steel 476 0.12
U.S. Pipe & Foundry 2,026 0.25
Jim Walter Resources DP 11 0.25 46 0.25
Alabama River Pulp Co. DP 432 0.40

Alpena Power Huron Portland Cement 0 18,000 1.00 9,936 1.00 9,187 1.00

Appalachian Power Fries Textile Co. E (Unmetered Emergency

Power)

Arizona Public Service Co. Phelps Dodge Corp. FP 7 2.50 6 2.50 6 3.15
-11

Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. Diamond International DP 3,101 1.01 2,490 0.99 370 0.84
Great Northern Nekoosa DP 6,611 1.00

Carolina Power & Light Co. Rocky Mountains Mills DP 180 0.25 76 0.25 432 0.28
Sonoco Products DP 8 0.15 37 0.15 17 0.15

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. Beacon Terminal Supply DP 35 1.84 81 1.70

Central Illinois Light & Power Hiram Walker DP 388 1.00 666 1.35 1,680 1.49

Central Maine Power Edwards Manufacturing Co. 6,337 0.32

Damariscotta Mfg. Co. 1,782 0.65
South Berwick Mfg. Co. 2,249 0.65
York Corp. 3,748 0.65
Bates Fabr. 6,440 0.90
Greenville Mfg. Co. 1,724 0.65
Windham Electric Co. 5,079 0.65
W. S. Libbey 1,968 0.30
Rumford Falls Power Co. 7,905 0.63
Piscataquis Dev. Co. 1,624 0.63

Central Vermont Public Service Corp Bethel Mills, Inc. DP 477 0.40 103 0.40
 Table 5-5 (Continued)

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
TYPE* AMOUNT
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Champion International, Inc. DP 432 1.42

Citizens Utilities McBryde Sugar 14,078 1.09 10,116 0.65

Lihue Sugar 12,739 3.14 6,854 0.51

Kekaha Sugar 9,321 3.04 3,861 0.45

Okokele Sugar 1,579 0.38 826 0.40

Conunonwealth Edison Produce Terminal Corp. DP 4,488 0.71 4,344 0.91

Central Mfg. Dist. DP 318 0.76 72 0.97

Metro San Distributors DP 26 0.25

Consumer Power Co. Dow Chemical Co. FP 6,083 0.84 3,221 0.69 1,057 0.47
Ul
ZT-

Delmarva Power & Light Co. Getty Oil Co. DP 58,143 2.21 84,082 2.46 63,285 2.51

Hagley Foundation DP 414 0.965

Detroit Edison University of Michigan DP 2,380 0.93 2,075 0.94 3,076 0.97

Fitchburg Gas & Electric James River Mills, Inc. DP 391 0.90 949 0.647

Georgia Power Reeves Brothers DP 574 0.20 937 0.20

Thomson Weinman & Co. DP 2,875 — 2,875 —
Habershaw Mills DP 21 0.20 19 0.20
Bibb Manufacturing Co. DP 396 0.25 58 0.25

Hawaiian Electric Co. Waialua Agriculture Co. DP 240 1.25 736 0.99 664 1.19

Oahu Sugar DP 108 0.83 128 0.74 296 1.19

C & H Refining DP 143 1.42 351 2.00 135 2.51

Hawaii Electric Light Co. Hilo Coast Proc. DP 290 0.40 101 0.40

Kau Sugar Co. DP 7 0.40 2 0.40

Honokaa Sugar DP 5,014 0.97 7,703 0.96

Laupa Hoe Hoe Sugar DP 2,180 0.40 1,898 0.40

Puna Sugar DP 45,146 1.98 38,301 2.67

Hilo Coast Proc. FP 101,071 1.97

 Table 5-5 (Continued)

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
TYPE* AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Holyoke Water Power Brown Paper 0 2,240 1.00 3,908 1.00

Scott Graphics 90 1.00
Sonow Products 10 1.00
Xidec Corp. 48 1.00
Sunoco Products 0 43 1.00 37 1.00

Houston Light & Power Co. Texas Gulf Sulfur DP 640 0.54 325 0.52 133 0.50

Idaho Power Co. Cominco Ltd. DP 175,633 2.30 43 2.40

Boise Cascade Corp. DP 90 0.15
-13

Indianapolis Power & Light Co. General Motors 0 78 0.60 21 0.61 2,693 0.60

Iowa Public Service Electriform 1,093 1.11

Jersey Central Power & Light Co. Madison Borough 70 5.00

Kansas Gas & Electric Co. Univ. Atlas Cement 2 0.10

Kansas Power & Light Co. Bowersock Mills & Power 4,693 0.71

Lake Superior Distribution Co. Flambeau Paper DP 144 0.44 324 0.51

Louisiana Power & Light Co. Crown Zellerbach O 41 1.39

Madison Gas & Electric Co. University of Wisconsin 16,672 0.54

Massachusetts Electric Co. Atlantic Enterprises DP 3,516 1.29 2,486 1.70

Boott Mills DP 3,379 1.46 1,155 1.51
Merrimac Paper DP 1,440 1.07 1,478 1.39
Rowland Industries DP 4,879 1.31 3,422 1.70
General Electric 55 0.50

Maui Electric Co. Hawaiian Com. Sugar FP 7 6.26 709 0.67 10 6.80
Dole Co. FP 6,190 4.61 6,327 4.83 6,418 5.28
 Table 5-5 (Continued)

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
TYPE* AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Minnesota Power & Light Co. U.S. Steel DP 13/614 0.58 8,659 0.74 1,612 0.71
Northwest Paper DP 69 0.15 327 0.30 157 0.30
179 0.22
Blandin Paper DP 480 NA

Monongahela Power Co. Union Carbide DP 4,201 2.08 1,106 2.12 18,815 2.39

New England Power Georgia Pacific DP 1,020 0.57 518 0.56 195 0.64
Metropolitan Dist. Comm. DP 23,114 0.59
-14

Niagara Mohawk Moreau Manufacturing Co. FP 23,768 0.57 275 0.45

Carthage Paper DP 320 0.45
John C. Cataldo FP 6,008 0.38 2,429 0.68
2,740 0.41
Dexter Hydro FP 31,571 0.80 11,638 0.88
16,727 0.88
Finch, Pruyn & Co. DP 144 0.45 267 0.45
Gould Paper DP 1,679 0.45
Daniel Green Co. DP 513 0.10 110 0.10
Groveton Paper FP 3,554 0.72 186 — 129 0.45
Hamshire Paper Mills DP 8,830 0.80 6,435 0.80 6,251 0.87
Knowlton Brothers DP 1,616 0.45 1,400 0.45 1,102 0.45
Latex Fibre 631 0.20
National Aniline DP 2,239 0.50 1,349 0.50
Georgia Pacific Corp. DP 1,013 0.45 378 0.45
Daniel Green Co. DP 212 0.10
Potsdam Paper Co. DP 260 0.73 68 0.50
Boise Cascade FP 413 0.34 171 0.45
Allied Chemical DP 3,202 0.49
 Table 5-5 (Continued)

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
TYPE* AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Star Milling & Electric Co. FP 550 0.61 490 0.60
H. G. Rinkel & Son FP 319 0.58 120 0.50
Bethlehem Steel DP 4,480 0.37 2,596 0.41

Northern States Power Co. Ford Motors DP 27,472 0.35 39,805 0.35

Ohio Edison Republic Steel DP 3,266 1.02 1,271 1.04 50 1.18

Youngstown Sheet & Tube DP 475 1.29

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Georgia Pacific DP 7,734 0.21 7,939 1.44 24,191 2.00
Brooks Scanlon DP 4,290 0.30 15,800 0.99
International Paper DP 2,669 0.22 272 0.90
ST-

DP 234 0.24 2,400 0.97

Willamette Industries DP 1,008 0.17 271 0.71
DP 65 0.98
U.S. Plywood 145 0.20
Boise Cascade 3,082 0.22 3,357 0.96
Dow Chemical O 80,424 3.05 2,988 2.50
Louisiana-Pacific O 24,883 2.00 34,978 2.00
Stauffer Chemical O 776 1.40 1,923 1.39
Warm Springs Forest Prod. DP 5,991 1.00
Weyerhaeuser Co. DP 1,048 0.87

Pacific Power & Light Co. Willamette Industries DP 18 0.30

Weyerhaeuser Co. DP 632 0.68
International Paper DP 740 0.89
82 0.74
Boise Cascade DP 2,382 0.64
Champion Building Prod. DP 1,707 1.00 364 0.60
Brooks Scanlon DP 1,524 1.00
Warm Springs Forest Prod. DP 6,892 0.72
Roseburg Lumber Co. DP 20,523 1.00
 Table 5-5 (Continued)

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
TYPE* AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Pennsylvania Electric Co. T. C. Lewis 51 2. 39

Endbehr 0 7,728 1.30 12,500 1.51 13,923 1.63

Portland General Electric Co. Hanford Industries FP 40,311 0.80 42,286 0.80
Centralia FP 9,826 0.70 12,465 0.47
Lake Oswego DP 2,608 0.72
Publishers Paper Co. DP 350 0.86

Public Service of Colorado Shell 435 1.86

Redlands Water £ Power Co. DP 6,755 0.57
-16

Rochester Gas & Electric Co. Eastman Kodak DP 523 0.30 1,824 0.31 803 0.75

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. West Kootney 4,334 0.58
Encina Unit 5 FP 267,464 2.78

South California Edison Long Beach Combined Cycle 12,335 2.00 18,812 2.33

South Indiana Gas & Electric Hoosier Energy Division 0 188 2.52 495 1.89
Alcoa General Corp. 0 1,805 1.76
0 946,328 0.03

Toledo Edison Interlake Steel FP 1,117 13.75 1,563 11.74 883 9.80
Libby-Owens-Ford Co. 124 6.24

Upper Peninsula Power Co. Escanaba Paper 733 1.99

White Pine Copper 0 11,353 1.52 5,125 2.55

Utah Power & Light Co. National Lead Industries - DP 557 1.10
Magnesium Division
Temple Granite Quarry DP 818 —
U.S. Steel - Geneva Steel DP 1,533 0.45
Division
 Table 5-5 (Concluded)

PURCHASES OF POWER BY PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES FROM INDUSTRIAL GENERATION

1976 1977 1978

POWER
NAME OF UTILITY NAME OF INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
TYPE* AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/ AMOUNT CENTS/
(1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH (1000 KWH) KWH

Virginia Electric Power Co. James River Paper 2 0.42

Federal Paper 24 0.29

Western Massachusetts Electric Co. Premoid Corp. 494 1.00 397 1.34

Strathmore Paper 417 0.70 264 1.00

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Niagara of Wisconsin DP 680 0.15 838 0.25

Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Miller Duane FP 500 1.00 530 1.00 362 1.00

Nekoosa Paper DP 117 0.92 82 0.50 605 0.50

Roband Co. DP 751 0.71 913 1.00 454 1.00

Wisconsin Public Service Corp. Scott Paper DP 338 0.39 162 0.50 378 0.42

Weyerhaeuser DP 54 0.43 47 0.50 139 0.48

Mosinee Paper DP 164 0.46 1,398 0.50 367 0.44

Owens Illinois DP 180 0.45 282 0.49 142 0.46

*FP - Firm Power

DP = Dump or Surplus Power
E = Sales to Utility on Emergency Basis Only
O = Other.
 Table 5-6

DISTRIBUTION OF STEAM AND ELECTRICITY USE IN INDUSTRIAL PLANTS

ELECTRICITY/STEAM NO. OF TOTAL STEAM USE PERCENT OF

RATIO* PLANTS (Million Lb/Hr) STEAM USE

0.05 35 40.3 13.8

0.05 - 0.1 67 68.0 23.3
0.11 - 0.15 85 90.9 31.2
0.16 - 0.2 30 31.2 10.7
0.21 - 0.25 8 8.6 3.0
0.26 - 0.3 10 9.3 3.2
0.31 - 0.35 12 11.0 3.8
0.35 35 32.2 11.0

TOTAL 282 291.5 100.0

*Electricity/steam ratio = Btu used as electricity/Btu used as steam.

Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, A Comparative Evaluation of Recent Reports

on the Energy Conservation Potential from Cogeneration, 1979.

Table 5-7

PROCESS RESIDUALS USED FOR STEAM GENERATION IN 1976

TYPE OF AMOUNT IN
INDUSTRY
PROCESS RESIDUAL TRILLION BTU

Food Bagasse 19.0

Pulp and Paper Hogged Wood 82.5

Waste Bark 97.5
Spent Liquor 802.0

Petroleum Refining Refinery Gases 276.0

Steel Cove-Oven Gas 56.7

Blast Furnace Gas 257.0
Tar and Pitch 5.1

Source: Resource Planning Assoc., The Potential for Cogeneration in Six Major
Industries by 1985, 1977

5-18
distillate oil as fuels — both of which are becoming scarce and more expensive.
Steam turbines need only a source of steam, which allows new technologies for
steam production to be retrofitted to the system (such as fluidized bed combustion
for coal or municipal waste).

Seventy-five percent of the industrial plants and the steam used is consumed by
plants with alpha values less than 0.2. This ratio can be supplied by steam with
inlet conditions at 900 psi/900°F to a backpressure turbine with outlet conditions
to process as saturated steam at 150 psi. Though this would require boilers
producing steam at somewhat higher pressures and temperatures than many plants now
use, these are not extremely demanding conditions. One problem that arises with
these low electric-steam ratios is whether to design the system to merely meet
thermal loads or whether to design the system to generate excess electricity for
sale outside the plant. The conditions offered by utility companies concerning
standby charges and prices for cogenerated electricity will have a decisive influ­
ence on the design of a cogeneration system. In the case of plants with high alpha
values, this decision is avoided; instead, the problem becomes whether to use
steam turbines and meet part of the electric demand or employ gas turbines or some
combination of the two and attempt to match electric and thermal demand.

USE OF PROCESS RESIDUALS FOR COGENERATION

The abundance of combustible process residuals in certain industrial as described

in Table 5-7 makes them prime candidates for increased cogeneration. The basic
advantage of cogeneration is its potential for generating electricity with less
fuel than can be accomplished in a central utility power plant. However, the
cogeneration system must earn an adequate return on investment. Since the
cogeneration system is likely to be more expensive per kilowatt of capacity (due
to economics of scale), the cogeneration system must be significantly more
efficient than the central plant in order to earn that minimum rate of return. If
the utility is generating with expensive fuels, the cogeneration system can use
the same fuels as long as it is able to generate at the required efficiency. But
when a utility is shifting to, or using fuels such as coal or uranium to generate
power, potential cogenerators may find it uneconomical to invest in generation
equipment fueled with oil or gas. Since there are strong economics of scale and
costs of pollution control associated with coal, this option may not be feasible
for many potential cogenerators.

One factor which can keep cogeneration economic under these circumstances is the
use of process residuals as fuels. By using a fuel whose cost is essentially zero

5-19
(though a value may be assigned to the product even though actually utilizing it
for other purposes would be difficult), low cost steam can be produced which can
be utilized to generate inexpensive electricity. The low boiler efficiencies of
some of these fuels (55 percent for pulp and paper wastes) is unimportant in this
case. There is an advantage in designing a waste fueled system; the low cost of
steam allows utilization of features such as condensing turbines to improve load
management which would be considered too inefficient under other circumstances.

5-20