lllDb 2LD234

Volume 1 8 HUD UTILITIES

DEMONSTRATION

SERIES

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF

THE JERSEY CITY TOTAL

ENERGY SITE: EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Washington, DC 20234

MODULAR INTEGRATED o mius UTILITY SYSTEMS

improving community utility services — supplying

electricity, heating, cooling, and water/ processing

liquid and solid wastes/ conserving energy and

natural resources/ minimizing environmental impact

Prepared for:

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Energy, Building Technology and Standards Division

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410

MARCH 1982

-~QC ~

100

, U56

82-24tf3

1982

w M

NBSIR 82-2483

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF

THE JERSEY CITY TOTAL

ENERGY SITE: EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

NATIONAL BOTUU.U OF 0TANDABD8

LIBRABT may 14 1982

C. W. Hurley

J. D. Ryan

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Washington, DC 20234

March 1 982

Prepared for Department of Housing and Urban Development

Building Technology Division

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director
I HUU l A Hi

'

; Tt ; .

fA"
Abstract

Under the sponsorship of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

the National Bureau of Standards gathered engineering and economic data from an apartment/ commercial complex located on a 6.35 acre (2.6 hectare) site in Jersey

City, New Jersey. The complex includes four medium and high rise apartment

buildings totalling 486 dwellings, a 46,000 ft^ (4270 m^) commercial building,

a school, a swimming pool, and a central equipment building.

The construction of the complex was started in 1971, after a decision by HUD to

design the central equipment building to produce both the thermal and electrical energy required by the site, and to install the necessary equipment to

recover the waste heat from the diesel engines driving the generators. The

central equipment building was designed as a total energy (TE) plant utilizing

absorption type chillers, and has been serving the complex since January 1974.

The National Bureau of Standards was responsible for instrumenting the plant

and site buildings and recording engineering data utilizing an automatic data

acquisition system (DAS). The DAS was put on-line in April 1975. These data

were processed by minicomputer at NBS to obtain the desired hourly, daily,

monthly and annual values and profiles of engineering measurements and/or

derived variables computed from the engineering measurements and other related

data.

Economic, reliability and environmental data were also collected and analyzed

by NBS in conjunction with an analysis of the engineering data. This report

presents an "Executive Summary" of the final report on the performance analysis

of the Jersey City Total Energy Project. The reader is encouraged to refer to

that final report for further details.

The analysis of the engineering data clearly indicates a significant savings in

fuel by using the total energy concept in the plant. Several areas were also

identified by this analysis where minor modifications in the plant operation

could result in additional fuel savings. Three of the modifications have

already been incorporated in the present plant operational procedures.

The analysis of the reliability of the utility services at the site indicated

services were being supplied to the consumers at an acceptable level within the

reliability targets set and achieved by many utility companies. Environmental

tests were made at the site for the effects of the plant on air quality and

noise. Nitrogen oxides (N0X ) were the only detectable combustion pollutants

from the plant. However, with the existing high background N0X levels in

the area, the contribution from the TE plant could be classified as incremental.

The noise level was below the daytime local noise ordinances at the buildings

adjacent to the plant. The environmental effects of the cooling tower were well within acceptable limits.

Economic analyses were made on the plant as operated during the study and on a comparative basis with twelve alternative systems. In general, those alternative systems utilizing the total energy concept showed a significant savings in

fuel, but the economics of such systems were marginal compared to conventional

type systems based on 1977/1978 economics.

iii
Key Words

:

Absorption chiller; boiler performance; diesel engine performance;

engine-generator efficiency; integrated utility system; total

energy systems-economic and engineering analysis; waste heat

recovery.

iv
Table of Contents

Page

ABSTRACT ill

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SITE DESCRIPTION 3

3. PLANT AND SITE MEASUREMENTS 7

4. ENGINEERING DATA - PLANT AND SITE BUILDINGS 11

5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS - PLANT COMPONENTS AND SUBSYSTEMS 26

6. RELIABILITY EVALUATION 33

7. RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS 34

8. ENERGY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS 36

9. JCTE COST DATA AND ANALYSIS 39

10. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS 45

v
Disclaimer

Certain commercial equipment and instrumentation and data acquisition systems

are identified by name in this report in order to adequately describe the

capabilities and technical features of hardware used in the instrumentation

system. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the material

or equipment identified is necessarily the best available for the purpose.

vi
SI CONVERSIONS

In view of the presently accepted practice of the building industry in the

United States and the structure of the computer software used in this project, common U.S. units of measurement have been used in this report. In recognition

of the United States as a signatory to the General Conference of Weights and

Measures, which gave official status to the SI system of units in 1960, appropriate conversion factors have been provided in the table below. The reader

interested in making further use of the coherent system of SI units is referred

to NBS SP330, 1972 Edition, "The International System of Units," or E380-72,

ASTM Metric Practice Guide (American National Standard 2210.1).

Metric Conversion Factors

Length 1

1 inch (in) = 25.4 millimeters (mm)

foot (ft) = 0.3048 meter (m)

Area 1 ft?- = 0.092903 m?

Volume 1 ft 3 = 0.028317 ra 3

Temperature F = 9/5 C + 32

Temperature

Interval 1 F = 5/9 C or K

Mass 1 pound (lb) = 0.453592 kilogram (kg)

Mass Per Unit

Volume 1 lb/ft 3 = 15.0185 kg/m3

Energy 1 Btu = 1.05506 kilojoules (kJ)

Specific Heat 1 Btu/ [ ( lb) ( °F) ] = 4.1868 kJ/[ (kg) (K)]

Gallon 1 gallon = 0.0037854 m3

vii
(/
1 . INTRODUCTION

This is an executive summary of the major results contained in the document:

Performance Analysis of the Jersey City Total Energy Site: Final Report, HUD

Utilities Demonstration Series, Volume 13, NBSIR 82-2474. In this executive

summary, a brief background of the project and a limited description of the

site are given. Fundamental engineering data are presented as well as an analysis of the engineering performance of the plant, plant components and

distribution systems. A brief overview of the results of a series of

environmental analyses is also presented.

An overview of the economic evaluation of the plant is presented with the

results of an analysis of the fundamental costs of the various components and

services of the plant. The results of a study of alternative systems are presented with the relative costs and energy requirements of each system. The

plant in its present configuration was used as a reference or base line in

this study of alternative systems.

The reader who is interested in any specific area or areas of the project is

encouraged to refer to the final report cited above for further information

and the conditions under which the data were derived and are presented.

1.1 TOTAL ENERGY CONCEPT

The generation of electrical energy by conventional means uses less than 40

percent of the available energy in the coal, fuel oil, or gas firing the

boilers to produce steam for driving turbines. The remaining 60 percent is

usually rejected into the environment as waste heat. In the total energy (TE)

concept, every effort is made to recover this waste heat and utilize it for

other needs of the surrounding community. Space heating, domestic hot water,

and space cooling utilizing absorption chillers are the typical applications

of this waste heat.

The total energy (TE) concept in the United States was originally encouraged

by the natural gas utilities. However, due to technical and operational problems, as well as concern about the unavailability of natural gas, this implementation of TE fell to lower levels. The energy crisis has again increased

the interests in TE. Some of the recent initiatives in the development of TE

have been encouraged largely as a part of Federal Government R&D activities.

The number of plants installed during the original promotional days of TE is

impressive and over 2,000 plants were in operation in 1977 in the United

States. However, there has been little unbiased feedback on actual operating

costs. The identifications of problems in TE installations has been minimal

and R&D efforts could not be formulated. Some general agreement as to the reasons for TE system problems or complete failure do exist; the majority are centered around maintenance costs, inadequacy of controls, auxiliary equipment

reliability, and difficulties in expansion to meet growing demands.

1
1.2

OBJECTIVES OF HUD

One of the goals of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

is providing better housing in a suitable living environment at reasonable

costs. Space heating, domestic hot water, space cooling, electrical energy for

lighting and home appliances are all part of better housing, and clean air and

water contribute to a suitable living environment. Each of these items reflect

on the better use of resources and the correction of wasteful and expensive

practices

.

HUD'S evaluation of the TE concept began in 1970. During this same time

period, HUD had a large scale program underway to demonstrate industrialized

housing. The program was called "Operation BREAKTHROUGH" . The BREAKTHROUGH

sites were conventionally financed, owned and insured by HUD and developed

under contracts with developers and industrialized housing producers. The

existence of the BREAKTHROUGH program provided an excellent opportunity for

HUD to demonstrate and evaluate innovative utilities including the total energy

concept by using the BREAKTHROUGH sites. These sites were eventually sold by

HUD to private sector owners, including the TE plant.

1.3

NBS ROLE IN PROJECT

Based on feasibility studies made by NBS and other factors, HUD chose the

Jersey City Operation BREAKTHROUGH Site (described subsequently) as the location of the TE demonstration. NBS prepared a performance specification. A

contract was awarded to Gamze-Korobkin-Caloger (GKC) , an engineering design

corporation in Chicago, for complete design and preliminary analysis of the

plant

.

1.4

TIME FRAME OF CONSTRUCTION TO OPERATION

Construction at the Jersey City site started in November 1971 and the TE plant

was put in operation in January 1974. In parallel with the site construction

activities, NBS designed and built an instrumentation and data acquisition

system (DAS) and proceeded to establish and refine procedures used in the

evaluation of the demonstration. The DAS was put in service in April 1975,

automatically recording engineering data from the plant. The monitoring

instruments in the site buildings were put on-line with the DAS in November

1975. The evaluation for HUD continued through December 1977 and therefore

included a total of 33 months of measured DAS data and up to 48 months of

economic data.

2
2. SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 SITE BUILDINGS

The Jersey City Total Energy site occupies an area of 6.35-acres (2.6-hectares)

and contains four apartment buildings, an elementary school, a swimming pool,

a commercial building and parking space for the tenants. Figure 2-1 shows an aerial view of the site and its surroundings. Figure 2-2 depicts the plan layout of the individual buildings contained on the site. The four apartment

buildings provide 486 dwelling units varying from economy apartments to four

bedroom units. Some of the units are two-floor apartments. The individual

apartment buildings vary from 7 to 18 stories above ground level and contain

from 40 to 152 apartment units. The three-story commercial building contains

approximately 25,500 ft^ (2369 m^) of rentable office area, 20,500 ft^ (1905

m^) of store area, and a 72 space in-building parking area.

The two-story elementary school (Preschool through Grade 3) contains

approximately 15,700 ft^ (1460 m^). A small outdoor swimming pool is

adjacent to the school.

The site buildings are served by a 4-pipe hot and chilled water distribution

system from the central total energy plant.

2 . 2 PLANT

The major components of the TE plant are five diesel engine-generators, two

hot water boilers and two absorption-type chillers. The engine generators are shown in figure 2-3. A schematic diagram showing the relative position of the

major components in the plant is shown in figure 2-4. The broad line represents the primary hot water (PHW) loop. This is a closed loop with the pumps

circulating approximately 11,000 pounds (5000 kg) of water per minute around

the loop. The water passes through one or two of the boilers in series depending upon the valving by the plant engineer. The absorption-type chillers utilize hot water from the PHW loop when they are in service. Secondary hot water

heat exchangers supply heat from the PHW loop to the secondary distribution

system serving the site. The dry cooler and emergency heat exchanger are units

in the loop which limit the temperature level in the loop to a maximum of

approximately 230°F (110°C). These units prevent the overheating of the engines

in the event of a very low demand for hot water from the plant or a control

malfunction. The dry cooler releases excessive heat into the atmosphere via

forced convection and the emergency heat exchanger releases heat to city water

when the emergency valves are opened.

The PHW passes through the jackets of all five engines in parallel. A portion

of the water passing through each jacket is routed through a separate exhaust

gas heat exchanger supplied for each engine. From these exchangers, the PHW

returns to the common loop.

3
Kennedy

Blvd

.

Figure 2-1 . Overall view of total energy site

Newark Avenue

Figure 2-2. Relative location of individual buildings at the

Jersey City Total Energy Site

4

Summit
Figure 2-3. The five 600 KW engine-generators

5
6

Figure

2-4.

Plant

primary

hot

water

loop
3. PLANT AND SITE MEASUREMENTS

3.1 OBJECTIVES

Continuous, on-site measurements were the major part of the NBS/JCTE monitoring

program. These engineering measurements, their frequency and accuracy, and the

duration of the monitoring were determined by the data requirements of the JCTE

evaluation activities. These efforts included plant and site energy use studies,

plant component performance evaluations and an assessment of the quality of the

utility services supplied to the site tenants.

The energy study plan sought to account for all energies supplied to the plant,

the energy used by the plant for its operation, the energy supplied to each of

the site buildings, the distribution losses, and that energy discarded from the

plant as waste heat. These data were used to calculate an overall plant energy

effectiveness as a function of time.

3.2 DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM

The instrumentation and data acquisition system (DAS) monitored approximately

135 plant and 90 site variables at five-minute intervals on a year-round basis.

The system recorded these data on magnetic tape for shipment to NBS for processing. A modem link over a telephone line from the DAS to NBS was also available for the transmission of real-time data during the later part of the period

covered by this report.

The data recorded by the DAS originated from monitoring transducers located in

the plant and in the electrical and mechanical rooms of the site buildings. The

transducers and the DAS did not affect the operation of the plant since they

were designed and installed to be completely independent of the operational

instruments and controls used by the plant operator. The DAS monitoring instrumentation included flowmeters and venturis to measure fuel and water flow rates,

thermocouples and multi-junction thermopiles to determine temperatures, Halleffect meters and related components to measure instantaneous electrical power,

pressure cells for pressure measurements and seven types of weather instrumentation. Signal conditioning circuitry was used where necessary and integration

techniques were used to convert instantaneous electrical power signals to

electrical energy signals. Integration circuitry was also used to provide

analog signals from the pulsating output signals.

The central station of the DAS is shown in figure 3-1 and was located in the

central equipment building (plant). The central DAS sampled, digitized and

recorded on magnetic tape the output of all instrumentation within a 30-second

time period. This process was performed every five minutes, 24 hours each day.

The reels of magnetic tape from the DAS were sent at about weekly intervals to

NBS for processing,

3.3

DATA PROCESSING

The magnetic tapes from the DAS were processed by a computer which converted raw millivolt data to engineering units, using instrumentation calibration data.

7
Figure 3-1. The data acquisition system located in the plant

8
The end result of the computer processing was the conversion of the raw DAS

data from each channel into hourly engineering data and approximately 320

derived variables stored on monthly magnetic storage discs.

3.4 ACCURACY OF DATA

The accuracy of the engineering data, presented is primarily dependent upon the

accuracy of the measurement instrumentation. In general, the DAS instrumentation installed at the JCTE site was capable of producing data at acceptable

levels of accuracy for heat balance calculations, load patterns, mathematical

models, etc. The accuracy of engineering values computed from more than one

DAS channel depends on the combined accuracy of the individual pieces of

instrumentation.

Special factors which reflect on the accuracy of the data presented include the

percentage of time in the period of interest that raw data were recorded.

Figure 3-2 presents a bar graph representing the percentage of time the DAS was producing valid engineering data for each month of the 33-month period covered in

this report.

Other factors which reflect on the accuracy include the use of small differences

in temperature to determine certain derived variables. The error increases as the temperature difference between two points decreases. The reader interested

in further details of the accuracy of the values presented in this executive

summary is referred to the Final Report and related references given.

9
MONTHLY

DATA

PROCESSED

(%)

1975 I 1976 I 1977 I

Figure 3-2. Percentage of time in the month when data were recorded

and processed by NBS

10
4. ENGINEERING DATA - PLANT AND SITE BUILDINGS

This section of the executive summary presents engineering data for the plant

and site buildings. The reader is encouraged to refer to the Final Report

before using these data for comparison or modelling purposes.

4.1 THERMAL AND ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS FROM PLANT

Figure 4-1 is a schematic diagram of the PHW loop which has been simplified to

indicate the basic thermal energy inputs and outputs of the plant. These values are listed in table 4-1. The reader is referred to the Final Report for more detailed definitions of the terms used in all tables presented in this

section. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 represent daily thermal outputs of the boiler

and engines, and the output of the chillers, respectively, for the 1977 season.

Table 4-2 presents the monthly values of electrical energy (kilowatt-hours)

recorded by the DAS. The important items in this table are: (1) the gross

electrical energy generated, (2) the site load (the total supplied to the site

buildings) and (3) the "net generated" which is equivalent to the electrical

energy the plant and site would be purchasing from the local utility if the

plant were not generating electrical power.

Table 4-3 lists the monthly fuel consumption of the boiler and engines, the

higher heating value of the fuel, the number of boilers on-line and the heating

and cooling degree-days for each of the 33 months.

Table 4-4 presents the monthly component and plant performance values. The

"engine gross electrical efficiency" is the gross output of the generators

divided by the higher heating value (HHV) of the fuel consumed by the engines.

The "engine gross electrical plus thermal efficiency" is the sum of the gross

electrical output of the generators and the thermal energy recovered from the

engines divided by the HHV of the fuel consumed by the engines. The "boiler

efficiency" is the thermal input to the PHW loop by the boilers divided by the

HHV of the fuel consumed by the boilers. The "chiller COP" is the thermal

output of the chillers divided by the thermal input from the PHW loop to the

chillers. The COP does not include the electrical energy required to operate

the auxilliary pumps for the chillers. The "engine-generator heat rate" is the

HHV of the fuel required to produce one kWh of net electrical energy. These

values are listed for comparison with the typical values listed by electric

utilities. The "plant energy effectiveness" values were calculated considering

the plant as a "black box" and dividing the thermal and electrical outputs of

the plant (electrical, heating and cooling) by the HHV of the total fuel consumed by the plant. These values are listed to compare the operation of the

JCTE plant on a seasonal basis and are not valid for direct comparison with

other plants utilizing different types of chillers or for plants located in

climates significantly different from the JCTE site.

4.2 THERMAL AND ELECTRICAL LOAD DATA FOR SITE BUILDINGS

An additional task of the JCTE project was to collect data from the individual

site buildings to determine the electrical, heating, domestic hot water, and

cooling loads. The remote DAS units were put in service in November 1975.

11
WASTE

HEAT

12

Electrical

energy

required

if

purchased

from

local

utility
Table 4-1. Monthly thermal data (millions of Btu)

Month

Recovered

from

engines

Recovered

from

boilers

PHW heat

to

chillers

PHW heat

to secondary

KW exchangers

PHW dry

cooler and

piping losses

cooling

plant

loads

site

1975

April 1728 3075 0 4096 707 0 0

May 1744 1471 760 1884 571 0 100

June 2198 3891 3488 904 1697 336 1000

July 2428 2631 4020 800 239 356 1804

August 2556 3888 5357 802 285 468 2133

September 1839 1087 783 1003 1140 84 128

October 1751 1062 0 2266 547 0 0

November 1863 1986 0 3362 487 0 0

December 2028 4144 0 5544 628 0 0

1976

January 1753 5635 0 6904 484 0 0

February 1797 3825 0 5158 464 0 0

March 1922 2897 0 4421 398 0 0

April 1930 1252 0 2867 315 0 0

May 1994 559 396 1766 391 1 87

June 2433 4622 5233 1155 667 297 1864

July 2592 4469 5760 1084 217 396 2294

August 2641 5666 6937 1091 279 412 2334

September 2613 3575 4763 1130 395 268 1285

October 2011 1724 313 2957 465 33 140

November 1981 3229 0 4737 473 0 0

December 2001 5032 0 6520 513 0 0

Total 1976 25668 42485 23402 39790 5061 1407 8004

1977

January 2184 6038 0 7630 592 0 0

February 1798 4023 0 5391 430 0 0

March 1935 2566 0 4128 373 0 0

April 1920 1301 0 2891 330 0 0

May 2096 1540 1606 1765 265 101 490

June 2234 2394 3264 1138 226 254 1366

July 2656 3856 5378 890 244 398 2679

August 2524 3855 5210 985 184 460 2452

September 2216 3747 4525 1144 294 350 1263

October 1953 1536 314 2744 431 38 83

November 1867 2865 0 4236 496 0 0

December 2066 4925 0 6453 538 0 0

Total 1977 25449 38646 20297 39395 4403 1601 8333

13
300

CM

r-»

<ys

LO

CM oCM LO m

avq Had nia voaw

14

Figure

4-2.

Thermal

energy

recovered

from

engines

and

boilers
180

ava Had ma voan

15

Figure

4-3.

Output

of

absorption

chillers

at

plant
Table 4-2. Monthly electrical data (Megawatt-hours)

Total

Gross Allocated Allocated allocated to PTC* Site Net

Month generated to heating to cooling HVAC in-plant load load generated

1975

April 531.5 55.7 0 55.7 6.7 403.2 465.6

May 542.2 43.8 14.3 58.1 3.8 416.3 478.2

June 638.5 26.0 150.3 176.3 3.5 459.8 640.4

July 740.3 27.5 175.6 203.1 3.2 487.1 693.4

August 758.0 28.7 179.1 207.7 3.2 498.1 709.0

September 637.4 41.8 42.4 84.4 3.8 466.9 555.1

October 576.9 46.5 0 46.5 3.1 465.0 514.6

November 593.5 52.2 0 52.2 2.5 495.2 550.9

December 652.1 55.4 0 55.4 2.7 541.2 599.3

1976

January 674.9 57.8 0 57.8 2.9 557.0 617.8

February 621.2 52.2 0 52.2 2.4 506.6 561.2

March 650.6 56.6 0 56.6 6.1 523.2 585.9

April 607.0 47.3 0 47.3 7.6 478.4 533.3

May 634.0 39.0 22.8 61.8 8.4 482.1 552.2

June 790.7 28.2 152.6 180.8 4.9 542.4 728.4

July 822.8 29.3 179.2 208.5 3.5 565.8 776.8

August 850.2 31.0 200.6 231.6 3.0 567.5 802.1

September 809.5 29.0 182.3 211.3 3.1 544.4 758.8

October 662.4 49.3 15.2 64.4 3.1 530.2 597.7

November 639.3 56.2 0 56.2 3.4 523.2 582.7

December 676.4 56.9 0 56.9 3.9 558.1 618.9

Total 1976 8439.0 532.8 752.7 1285.4 52.3 6378.9 7715.8

1977

January 689.8 55.6 0 55.6 3.1 574.6 633.3

February 607.8 48.9 0 48.9 2.8 501.9 553.6

March 641.1 53.4 0 53.4 3.3 520.8 577.5

April 617.2 46.7 0 46.7 3.2 499.0 548.9

May 664 .

4

35.8 63.9 99.6 4.0 494.3 597.9

June 723.9 26.6 134.4 161.0 3.4 510.3 674.7

July 834.6 30.8 178.1 208.9 3.4 570.0 782.2

August 821.7 29.5 156.5 186.0 3.7 580.5 770.2

September 739.3 25.5 140.9 166.3 3.3 522.3 691.9

October 630.4 44.6 19.4 64.9 4.0 499.8 568.7

November 606.2 55.1 0 55.1 4.5 498.3 555.0

December 662.7 56.8 0 56.8 3.5 547.9 608.2

Total 1977 8239.1 509.3 693.2 1203.2 42.2 6319.7 7562.1

* PTC - Pneumatic Trash Collection

16
Table 4-3. Monthly fuel data

Consumed Consumed Total fuel Higher heating No . of

by engines by boilers consumed value (Btu boilers Degree-days

Month (gallons) (gallons) (gallons) per gallon) on-line Heating Cooling

1975

April* 40,652 27,490 68,142 139,400 2 524 0

May* 41,470 13,833 55,303 139,400 2 84 117

June* 52,061 34,316 86,378 139,580 2 6 211

July* 56,143 23,537 79,680 140,600 2 0 375

August* 57,485 34,180 91,665 140,600 2 1 321

September* 48,335 10,423 58,758 140,600 2 59 46

October* 44,352 10,392 54,744 138,703 2 195 20

November* 45,786 18,348 64,134 138,200 2 400 10

December* 49,938 36,706 86,644 139,226 2 913 0

1976

January* 51,623 49,394 101,017 139,400 2 1170 0

February* 47,369 33,752 81,121 139,824 2 738 0

March* 49,552 25,900 75,451 140,000 2 645 0

April* 46,227 11,871 58,098 140,000 2 338 50

May 48,361 5,455 53,816 138,970 1.5 141 30

June 60,267 41,505 101,772 138,440 1 17 281

July 62,824 36,794 99,618 138,665 1 0 317

August 64,586 47,618 112,204 138,890 1 4 305

September 61,906 29,450 91,356 138,967 1 56 110

October* 50,749 15,384 66,133 139,168 1 381 6

November 49,532 25,937 75,469 139,665 1 745 0

December

Total 1976

51,927

644,923

40,835

363,895

92,762

1,008,817

139,500 1.7 1107

5342

0

1099

1977

January 52,010 50,531 102,541 139,060 2 1361 0

February 46,220 32,923 79,143 139,096 2 895 0

March 49,807 20,722 70,529 139,000 2 563 6

April 47,788 10,816 58,604 139,400 2 352 18

May 51,407 13,663 65,070 138,935 1.3 89 111

June 54,703 20,022 74,726 138,320 1 24 191

July 63,171 34,623 97,794 139,355 1 0 414

August 62,463 33,506 95,969 139,640 1 0 321

September 56,745 30,830 87,575 139,640 1.5 50 146

October 47,791 14,836 62,627 139,640 2 319 1 November 46,936 26,367 73,303 139,000 2 527 0

December

Total 1977

50,653

629,694

43,530

332,369

94,183

962,064

139,000 2 975

5155

0

1208

* Fuel consumption data based on 32 percent engine-generator efficiency and boiler

model

17
Table 4-4. Monthly component and plant performance

Month

Engine gross

electrical

efficiency

%

Engine gross

electrical plus

thermal efficiency

%

Boiler

efficiency

%

Chiller

COP

Engine-gen

heat rate

(Btu per

net kWh)

Plant

energy

effectiveness

1975

April* 32.0% 62.5% 80.2% - 12,170 57.6%

May* 32.0% 62.2% 76.3% .132 12,090 44.2%

June* 32.0% 62.3% 81.2% .383 11,347 28.8%

July* 32.0% 62.8% 79.5% .537 11,383 38.1%

August* 32.0% 63.6% 80.9% .486 11,399 36.1%

September* 32.0% 59.1% 74.2% .271 12,243 33.0%

October* 32.0% 60.5% 73.7% - 11,954 50.7%

November* 32.0% 61.4% 78.3% - 11,487 57.0%

December* 32.0% 61.2% 81.1% - 11,602 61.3%

1976

January* 32.0% 56.4% 81.8% - 11,649 62.6%

February* 32.0% 59.1% 81.0% - 11,803 60.8%

March* 32.0% 59.7% 79.9% - 11,841 58.6%

April* 32.0% 61.8% 75.3% - 12,136 55.3%

May 32.2% 61.9% 73.7 % .245 12,171 46.6%

June 32.3% 60.3% 80.4% .413 11,454 34.5%

July 32.2% 62.0% 87.6% .467 11,214 38.4%

August 32.3% 61.8% 85.7% .396 11,184 34.6%

September 32.1% 62.5% 87.4% .326 11,338 33.6%

October* 32.0% 60.5% 80.5% .553 11,816 53.3%

November 31.5% 60.2% 89.1% - 11,872 61.9%

December 31.8% 59.5% 88.3% — 11,703 65.1%

1977

January 32.5% 62.7% 85.9% - 11,420 67.2%

February 32.3% 60.2% 87.8% - 12,048 64.5%

March 31.6% 59.5% 89.1% - 11,988 60.2%

April 31.7% 60.4% 86.3% - 12,136 56.2%

May 31.7% 61.1% 81.1% .368 11,945 43.6%

June 32.6% 62.2% 86.4% .496 11,214 41.1%

July 32.3% 62.5% 79.9% .572 11,254 40.5%

August 32.1% 61.1% 82.4% .559 11,325 40.4%

September 31.8% 59.8% 87.0% .356 11,452 34.3%

October 32.2% 61.5% 74.1% .385 11,734 51.8%

November 31.7% 60.3% 78.2 % - 11,755 60.2%

December 32.1% 61.5% 81.4% - 11,576 63.6%

* Values based on 32.0 percent engine-generator efficiency and boiler model.

18
4.2.1 Thermal Loads of Site Buildings

Tables 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 list the thermal energy consumed by the site buildings

in the East and West distribution loops. Unscheduled changes in building circulation pump capacities and delays in deliveries of replacement differential

pressure cells to accommodate the flow increase or decrease through the venturis were the primary causes for the excessive loss of valid data.

4.2.2 Electrical Loads of Site Buildings

The electrical loads for the site buildings are presented in a limited form in

this section. The original instrumentation installed in three of the six site

buildings by the contractor was inadequate to present valid data for actual

electrical energy consumption. Please refer to Final Report for details.

Three buildings for which valid data were produced were Shelley B, the

commercial building, and the school. The available data indicated that the

school consumed less than 3% of the total site electrical energy and are not

tabulated. Table 4-8 lists the monthly electrical data for the Shelley B and

commercial building. Seasonal diurnal profiles for these buildings are presented in figures 4-4 and 4-5. These profiles are of interest in comparing

seasonal loads and in indicating the relatively high load factors. The profile

of the commercial building was made for the weekdays Wednesday, Thursday,

Friday and Saturday. The lower weekend loads are apparent.

The table and the profiles of the individual building electrical loads are labeled PE and PN, denoting the loads of the "essential" bus and the "normal"

bus. The essential bus loads include hall and stairway lighting, water pumps,

one elevator per building, and any other items deemed necessary by the local

code in the event of a failure of the electrical output from the plant. During

plant outages, these loads and the essential loads of the plant were automatically switched to the local utility power lines. As soon as the plant was put

back in service, these loads were returned to the essential lines from the

plant. The reliability of the electrical plant will be discussed subsequently.

19
Table 4-5. Monthly thermal data for site buildings on East Secondary

hot water circulation loop (millions of Btu)

Shelley "A" Shelley "B" School

Month

Domestic

hot

water

Space

heating Total

Domestic

hot

water

Space

heating Total

Domestic

hot

water

Space

heating Total

1975

November 363 555 918 100 368 468 .6 NA NA

December NA NA NA 109 458 567 .6 NA NA

1976

January 470 1290 1760 129 670 689 .6 NA NA

February 419 873 1292 104 328 432 .6 NA NA

March 404 750 1154 88 327 415 .6 NA NA

April 314 653 967 57 184 241 .6 NA NA

May 349 376 725 98 NA NA .6 NA NA

June 322 0 322 90 0 90 .5 0 .5

July 277 0 277 88 0 88 .5 0 .5

August 260 0 260 87 0 87 .5 0 .5

September 257 0 257 80 0 80 .6 0 .6

October 288 NA NA 82 237 319 .6 80 80.6

November 395 NA NA 101 401 502 .6 160 161

December 448 NA NA 113 NA NA .6 222 223

1977

January 421 1492 1913 120 527 647 .6 234 235

February 345 NA NA 112 NA NA . 6 197 198

March 394 NA NA 124 705 829 .6 104 105

April 322 NA NA 117 247 364 .6 62 63

May 330 NA NA 106 61 167 .6 11 12

i June 305 0 305 91 0 91 .5 0 .5

July 237 0 237 75 0 75 .5 0 .5

August NA 0 NA NA 0 NA .5 0 .5

September 132 0 132 NA 0 NA .5 0 .5

October NA NA NA 129 173 302 NA NA NA

November 286 853 1139 112 284 396 NA NA NA

December 354 1410 1764 121 492 613 NA NA NA

NA = Data not available

20
Table 4-6. Monthly thermal data for site buildings on West Secondary

hot water circulation loop (millions of Btu)

Descon Caraci Commercial building

Domestic Domestic Domestic

hot Space hot Space hot Space

Month water heating Total water heating Total water heating Total

1975

November 156 364 520 219 454 673 NA NA NA

December 185 700 885 213 786 999 NA NA NA

1976

January 204 745 949 248 1173 1421 NA NA NA

February 179 523 702 225 648 873 1 537 538

March 172 455 627 233 576 809 1 475 476

April 163 271 434 240 339 579 1 247 248

May 178 126 304 193 97 290 1 NA NA

June 169 0 169 158 0 158 1 0 1 July 112 0 112 158 0 158 1 0 1 August 138 0 138 110 0 110 1 0 1 September 111 0 111 139 0 139 1 0 1 October 132 323 455 181 397 578 1 270 271

November 152 487 639 239 648 887 1 445 446

December 159 643 802 299 905 1204 1 564 565

1977

January 175 780 955 268 1220 1488 1 623 624

February 148 722 870 240 NA NA 1 NA NA

March 161 576 737 272 437 709 1 322 323

April 139 292 431 253 291 544 1 225 226

May 123 69 192 266 53 319 1 173 174

June 109 0 109 253 0 253 1 0 1 July 102 0 102 251 0 251 1 0 1 August NA 0 NA NA 0 NA 1 0 1 September 165 0 165 NA 0 NA 1 0 1 October 120 350 470 NA NA NA 1 142 143

November 103 602 705 173 730 903 1 298 299

December 153 1061 1214 233 1126 1359 NA NA NA

NA = Data not available

21
Table 4-7. Monthly chilled water energy use (millions of Btu)

Month Shelley A Shelley B School

Plant

Cooling Fan coil

coil units Descon Camci

Commercial

building

1976

May NA NA NA 10 0 NA NA NA

June NA 161 NA 297 20 295 NA

July NA 199 NA 396 20 358 107

August NA 206 NA 401 11 308 373 417

September NA 65 50 238 30 129 116 340

1977

May NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

June NA 142 46 219 36 191 249 308

July NA 251 60 358 40 313 577 383

August NA NA NA 346 34 NA NA NA

September NA NA NA 317 33 976 NA NA

October NA NA NA 32 6 NA NA NA

NA = Data not available
Table 4-8. Monthly electrical data for site buildings - Shelley B and Commercial Building (kilowatt - hours)

Month

PE

Shelley E PN Total PE

Commercial building

PN Total

1975

November 5145 51185 56330 NA NA NA

December 5320 58084 63404 NA NA NA

1976

January 5748 60186 65934 2399 43261 45660

February 5386 54711 60097 2157 42739 44896

March 5318 55178 60496 2256 47787 50043

April 5117 50557 55674 2186 45751 47937

May 5152 50397 55549 2228 48235 50463

June 5003 52662 57665 2272 45889 48161

July 5239 53492 58731 2272 53512 55784

August 5244 50807 56051 2203 52785 54961

September NA NA NA 2207 51131 53388

October 5188 55279 60467 2390 48770 51160

November 5237 56844 62081 2378 46525 48903

December 6608 62623 69231 2248 46974 49192

1977

January 6263 63785 70048 2145 47913 50058

February 5442 57213 62655 2010 44997 47007

March 5614 58083 63697 2360 47365 49725

April 5258 53178 58436 2380 48726 51106

May 5189 49428 54617 2455 52064 54519

June 4807 48874 53681 1911 52167 54078

July 4931 41099 46030 1904 55491 57395

August NA NA NA NA NA NA

September NA NA NA NA NA NA

October 5422 51040 56462 1777 49418 51195

November 5108 53231 58339 1625 48055 49680

December 5528 58364 63892 NA NA NA

NA = Data not available

PN = Normal bus

PE = Essential bus

23
110

4-

f|IIIi1=

Normal

Bus

t"-

O'*

0) <-i rO rH o co •u Pn a 's o

r-» <—

v

03 a)

Ph o

rH CO

•“3

r-. /—\

r- bo

O'*

C *—I *H

>-l >3 a

CO C/3 E w

r^- 03

H

rH <U HI ^3 C H *rl CO E2 0

S35BMOXJN

24

Figure

4-4.

Seasonal

profiles

of

electrical

loads

of

Shelley

B,

residential

building
120

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CMo

CM

i". <j\d i—i

Q) rH d CO OOo oCM

v£>

IT) O'! - V i—I >H S-i <11 >, g d d ^ cn

en

CM

/-v

r^. 6C a\ C i—I *H

)-< ^ di

CO CO S

r^> a'» d

cddd

cO l~3

s:j:ibwoxt>I

25

Figure

4-5.

Seasonal

profiles

of

electrical

loads

of

the

commercial

building
5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS - PLANT COMPONENTS AND SUBSYSTEMS

This section is a synopsis of a series of analyses made of the flow of energy

through the Summit Plaza Plant and its major components and subsystems for the

33-raonth period covered by the DAS engineering data. Emphasis is placed on the

last 12 months of this period since they are the most representative of full

occupancy of the site buildings.

The reader is referred to the Final Report for a more detailed engineering

analysis including possible energy-conserving alternative system configurations.

5. 1 ENGINE-GENERATOR PERFORMANCE

The average monthly electrical efficiency of the engine-generators for 1977 was 32.1 percent which is slightly higher than the value of 31.2 percent

reported in the factory tests of the units prior to installation in the plant.

In addition to maintaining a good electrical efficiency, one of the major factors determining the successful operation of a total energy plant is the

recovery and utilization of the thermal energy normally rejected by the engines

or other prime movers driving the generators. In general, only about 60 percent of the energy input to the engines was being recovered by electrical and

thermal means. An analysis of the available data relating to thermal energy

losses in the engine-generators indicated three major losses: (1) thermal

losses from the idle engines; (2) thermal losses caused by the accumulation of

deposits in the exhaust heat exchangers; and (3) the operation of the engines

at low loads.

Figure 5-1 represents the thermal output of engine number 2 in three basic

modes of operation: (1) the engine on-line and producing electrical and thermal outputs, (2) the engine not running but remaining in the primary hot water

(PHW) loop and (3) the engine valved out of the PHW loop for minor repairs.

The thermal output of the engine jacket and exhaust heat exchanger are positive

for the engine operating under load, negative for the idle engine in the PHW

loop, and zero for the engine valved out of the loop.

The losses from deposits in the heat exchangers are reflected in the rapid

increase of the temperature of the output gases after the unit was cleaned as shown in figure 5-2. An analysis of the daily heat recovery from the bank of

five engines for the month of January 1978 indicated that the thermal output of

the bank of engines was 7.6 percent greater than the electrical output with the

exhaust heat exchangers of the engines on-line having two days or less of service after cleaning and 8.6 percent less than the electrical output with the

exhaust heat exchangers of the engine on-line having from 13 to 27 days of service of cleaning. The daily profile for the month of January 1978 is shown in

figure 5-3.

With the exception of a period of less than the two months, the plant was operated continuously with three engines on-line. The plant operator had

elected to derate the capacity of the engine-generator units from 600 kW to

480 kW, allowing 120 kW for "transient loads".

26
kBtu

per

hour

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

-100

-200

1 Thermal output of No. 2 exhaust heat exchanger

2 — Thermal output of engine No. 2 jacket

3 - Total thermal output of engine No. 2

* « 1 f —I • 1 * 1 1 1 1 i 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Figure 5-1. The thermal energy recovered (or lost) from engine No. 2 under

three modes of operation: on-line, off-line and valved out of

the PHW loop. See text for details.

27
Degree

Fahrenheit

700t

1 = Temperature of exhaust gases entering exchanger

2 = Temperature of exhaust gases at outlet of heat exchanger

January 1978

Figure 5-2. Temperature of exhaust gases from engine No. 2 entering

and leaving the exhaust gas heat exchanger. The unit was taken off-line January 3, 1978, the exhanger cleaned, and

the unit put back on-line January 4, 1978. The rapid

accumulation of deposits in the tubes of the exchanger

are indicated by the increase in the outlet temperature.

28
Megawatt-hours

per

day

Gross electrical output

Figure 5-3. Gross electrical output and net thermal energy

recovered from the bank of engines. The exhaust

gas heat exchangers were cleaned during the period

December 26, 1977 through January 3, 1978. On the

January 25 and 26 the engines on-line were changed

.

Two engines with less deposites in their exhaust gas

heat exchanger were put on-line and reflected the rise

in the net thermal energy recovered from the engines.

The overall effects of the deposits in the exhaust gas

heat exchangers are reflected in these curves.

29
5.2 BOILER PERFORMANCE

The plant is equipped with two 13.4 MBtu (3.9 MW) oil fired, hot water boilers

capable of meeting the thermal demands of the site without the thermal energy

recovered from the engines. These boilers function with a reasonably high

efficiency. However, there is always a constant loss from each boiler when the

PHW is flowing through it. These boilers are operated in series in the PHW loop

when both boilers are on-line. The valving and controls are arranged to allow

either boiler to be taken out of the loop and either boiler to be put in the

lead position when both boilers are in the loop. Figure 5-4 indicates the

profiles for the output of both boilers during the month of January 1977, one

of the coldest months recorded in history for the JCTE site area. It will be

noted that the leading boiler did not exceed 75 percent of its rated capacity

before firing the lagging boiler. During the 33 month period of DAS data

covered by this report, both boilers were on-line for a total of 22 months.

5.3 CHILLER PERFORMANCE

During the three cooling seasons (1975, 1976, 1977) covered in this report, the

COPs* of the absorption-type chillers in the plant were 0.401, 0.402, and 0.489

respectively. The expected COP of absorption chillers of this type is 0.60.

An analysis of the data and the daily plant logs for these three cooling seasons indicated problems in seasonal and routine servicing and adjustment, most of

which was performed under contract. For example, at the end of the 1975 cooling

season, it was discovered that several large gaskets had been improperly

installed in the chillers. Fragments of these shredded gaskets restricted the

flows inside the chillers. During the 1976 season, the chillers appeared to

operate in a somewhat erratic manner indicating faulty control and/or adjustments. Periods of very low COP’s (0.2 to 0.3) were experienced for several

days which were followed by short periods of higher COPs (0.50); still below

the expected level. On September 21, 1976 a factory representative restored

the chillers to normal operation by making several adjustments in the controls.

Figure 5-5 presents the thermal input and output profiles showing the results

of this action.

The 1977 cooling season yielded high COP's for the months of June, July, and

August (0.496, 0.572 and 0.559 respectively). However, in September 1977 it was discovered that the nozzles in the cooling tower were clogged from scale

originally formed on the inside of the pipes and the COP fell to lower values

during the operation of removing, cleaning and replacing the nozzles.

Further analysis of the 1977 data indicated that 16 percent percent of the

total cooling load was used for plant cooling. The size and location of the

plant and the desire to make this plant more comfortable for maintenance and

for the numerous groups of visitors that were expected to visit and tour this

plant prompted the designer to provide cooling for the plant. If cooling were

not provided for this particular plant, modification to the plant ventilating

system would be required.

30
rH CM O O

sa

a

VjU

0) 0J i—I rH

•rl -H O O

FQ PP

II II rH CM

CM

M-imw

C

C rH o d) O

CO 0) rl |h

—

C "H 4-4 O O C

00

X

O

bo o

CM e <u H 3 OJ

In Eh

X

VO 3 4-1 CM T3 c • r • 0

to idH •rl

1-4 4-1 0) 3 4-4 a; co > O •rH CM rH "O <u X CO •H S O O rH O (-1 a 3 (5 3 QJ CM CJ a bC CM (1) »iH c X bC • 3 •H

4-1

O /'-v 4-4 HO

O i—* ^ cc cO CM 14-4 O 5S 2d QJ 1 O U O' rH o • 0 3 (U CO rH O

00 CJ 4-1 '—

4J 1—1

o> CO OJO ?—i

<u e i-t 4-4 bC 3 C

VO SCO 4-4 •H u O *H X 3 bO 1—1

cO F4

a bC P <44 t F 4-4 cfl c OJ 4) 3 rH <r cd o 3 a O i—i

*1 QJ Sh E

S-i

O 3 QJ

O

QJ CJ 4J

X Sh > QJ CQ 4-4 <4H CM O Mg

rH

O TJ T3

QJ CO <f QJ QJ

l-i

X • 4-4 bO

O

4-1 CO •H

C

rH to

C

—1 bO O

B

•H

cO X

u E 4-1 0) CO rH 0

00

C l~> >v CO • QJ QJ -0 rH cO -O QJ 4-4 rH rH 4J c ON

COO CO QJ rH rH VO E CJ l-i M

Sh

cO • #t Q) 0) QJ a 0 <r 3 3 H a Z H 4J (0 cO r~> in Sh MT 0) CO • rH 3

•HC

CM 1 m

O CO PP 1-0

J I 1

0J

l-i 3

bC

•H

Ph

WHOZ

arm naa naa voaw

31
MBtu

per

hour

1 - Thermal Input

Figure 5-5. Profiles of thermal input and output of chillers in

September 1976. The erratic functioning of the chillers

is indicated during the first half of the month. On

September 21, 1976, a factory representative restored

the units to normal operation.

32
6. RELIABILITY EVALUATION

A study was made of the availability and quality of the utility services

supplied by the plant to the site buildings. The electrical and thermal ser- vices were covered in this study. The availability of the services refers to

the interruption of utility services to the customers. The quality of service

refers to the acceptability of the service rendered.

6.1 RELIABILITY OF ELECTRICAL SERVICES

In general, the measured data indicate that the JCTE plant has the capability

of being highly reliable and functioning within the availability targets set,

and achieved, by many electric utility companies. These levels of reliability

were not, however, achieved in the first and third years of plant operation due

to plant outages attributable to the early debugging of plant equipment and a learning-curve period for plant personnel. The control system used in the electrical power generation portion of the plant was the principle source of equipment outages. If the JCTE plant data are to be used in reliability modelling,

the existing control system should be carefully evaluated with reference to the

present state-of-the-art of such control systems. The study also revealed the

partly-attended operating status of the plant had an adverse effect on reliability to the extent of a three fold increase in the average interruption duration.

Table 6-1 lists the interruptions for the period covered during this study. The

fractional numbers of interruptions reflect the partial outages of the site.

The time for the outages accounts for these partial outages.

The quality of the electrical services at the JCTE site were rendered at an acceptable level.

6.2 RELIABILITY OF THERMAL SERVICES

The availability and quality of the thermal services of the plant to the site were found to be well within an acceptable level with the exception of the

chilled water supply which frequently reached a temperature that exceeded the

desired maximum temperature limits.

Table 6-1. Summit Plaza Total Energy Plant Electrical Service Reliability

No . of Interr . Duration, Minutes

Year Interr

.

Total Average Maximum

1974 12.8 2474 193 1869

1975 0.6 5 - -

1976 11.6 992 86 249

1977 2.4 116 48 55

33
7. RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TESTS

On-site data were collected by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the

National Bureau of Standards to determine the environmental effects of the

JCTE plant on the air quality and noise. Measurements of air quality were made for a six week period in the summer and a six week period in the winter.

7.1 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Preliminary data and calculations showed that only N0X emissions from the plant

would be detectable in the form of ground level concentrations. Some ground

level data were taken for CO, SO2 , THC (total hydrocarbons) and particulates,

but only to characterize general air quality levels at the site. The ground

level N0X concentration contributions from the plant were expected to be influenced by the short exhaust stack, 62 ft (19 m) above ground, and by buildinginduced downwash of the exhaust plume due to the direction and velocity of the

wind. The actual results indicated that some plume downwash occurred about 50

percent of the time at Summit Plaza.

Ground level concentration data were continuously taken during a winter and summer test period at several locations, roughly at the four compass points and

at distances from 30 ft to 260 ft (9 m to 80 m) from the plant. Wind speed and

direction data were also taken in part to allow separation of data into downwind

and upwind data sets (i.e., TE plant affected data and background data). These

data indicated that the annual average contribution of the TE plant to groundlevel N0X ranged from .03 ppm to .06 ppm above the background levels, depending

on the direction and season.

U.S. Federal Air Quality Standards specify an annual arithmetic average

concentration of .05 ppm for NO2

. Although incomplete data was obtained for

NO2 , by applying measured N02 /N0x ratios to all data, it appeared that the

incremental contribution of the TE plant to ground-level NO2 was approximately

.018 ppm to .028 ppm, substantially less than the standards permit. However

the background NO 2 level for the site, without the influence of the TE plant,

appears to be very near the maximum levels specified in the standards. Adding

the TE plant in this circumstance has an adverse impact on the air quality.

7.2 NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT

Five surveys were conducted during July and August 1977. The diesel stack

dilution fan and cooling tower fans were operating during all surveys. The

engine-generators were the sources of the highest noise predominantly south of

the plant. The engine exhaust fans were the second highest sources causing

increased noise levels predominantly north of the plant. The noise contribution from these two most significant sources does not exceed the 65 dB(A) daytime limit of the local noise ordinances at any adjacent residential building.

The nighttime noise level limit of 50 dB(A) for residential space is exceeded

by the surrounding urban activities alone [55 dB(A)].

34
7.3 COOLING TOWER ASSESSMENT

The cooling towers used for waste heat rejection from the absorption chillers

were assessed for potential environmental effects including chemical toxicity,

plume visibility and nuisance effects of drift deposition. The cooling tower

water is treated with a chemically benign additive and the plume is rarely

visible during the season when the chillers are in service. Therefore, the

major efforts of this assessment were directed toward the drift deposition and

concentration characteristics. The results of these efforts indicated that the

drift deposition of the cooling tower plume was indistinguishable from ambient

concentrations of moisture and minerals. The drift loss was found to be at a very acceptable level of 1 x 10“^ percent when the towers were properly

maintained.

During the period of this assessment, the cooling towers located on the roof of

the plant were in the final stages of an unscheduled maintenance program. The

results stated above reflect conclusions reached from measurements after this

program was completed. Measurements made prior to the completion of the maintenance work reflected abnormally high drift losses resulting in spotty deposition on parked cars in the area of the plant. In general, the cooling towers

require routine cleaning maintenance to preserve good flow distribution and

low drift loss characteristics.

35
8. ENERGY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS

A series of comparative analyses were performed to examine the differences in

energy and economic impacts between the existing JCTE plant and other ways of

providing equivalent energy services to the Summit Plaza buildings. The results

of the comparative analysis of energy consumption are reported in this section.

Twelve different energy systems were postulated. The systems were selected to cover a representative range of all technical options for the buildings at the

Summit Plaza Site.

8.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS

Each of the twelve energy systems examined for Summit Plaza are briefly described

below:

System No.

Total Energy Systems

1. The existing total energy plant at Jersey City including Caterpillar diesel

engine-generators, oil-fired boilers and absorption chillers.

2. The existing JCTE plant with electric utility interconnecting to allow

selling of power to the local power company.

3. Same as system 1 above except using medium-speed, higher efficiency diesel

engines instead of the existing Caterpillar units.

4. Same as system 1 above except using combined absorption-compression chillers

with the absorption chillers thermally energized by recovered heat.

Conventional Central Systems

5. A central plant similar to system 1 without on-site electric power generation

and with electrically-driven compression chillers.

6. Similar to system 5 except using absorption chillers instead of compression

chillers

.

7. Similar to system 5 and 6 except using combined diesel-driven compression

chillers and absorption chillers energized by recovered heat.

Conventional Building Systems

8. An individual mechanical system for each building using electrically-driven

compression chillers, oil-fired boilers and hydronic distribution. Electrical energy purchased.

9. Similar to system 8 except using electric boilers.

36
Individual Unit Systems

10. Self contained through-the-wall terminal air conditioners with electrical

resistance heat for each apartment. Electrical energy purchased.

11. A single heat pump for each apartment with forced air distribution.

12. A central air conditioner/electric resistance heat unit for each apartment

with forced air distribution.

8.2 ENERGY EVALUATION

Energy consumption in terms of both fuel and electrical energy consumed on-site

for each of the alternative systems described above was determined by means of

a commercially available computer program. The program simulates in detail the

performance and operation of each of the alternative systems in response to

diurnal site load variation.

The availability of actual measured data from the JCTE plant presented the

opportunity to "fine-tune" the computer simulation to more accurately model the

existing plant (System 1). Obtaining an accurate model of system 1 improved

the accuracy of other alternative system models since the site loads and many

components were common to more than one system.

The energy consumption loads for secondary hot water, chilled water and site

and plant electrical energy requirements for the specific months chosen for the

comparison were obtained from tables 4-1 through 4-4. The measured values were compared to loads calculated by the program. Differences were expected in the

heating and cooling loads because of the excessive site distribution losses

described in the Final Report. The analysis presented in section 5 of this

summary and in the Final Report determined the approximate magnitude of the

anomalous losses and these values were used to normalize the actual JCTE data

to provide a more valid comparison.

The results of the computer runs for each of the 12 systems are presented in

table 8-1. The values listed reflect adjustments made in the computer program

for the anomalies previously discussed. The results of the economic comparison

of the alternative systems are given in section 10 of this summary.

37
Table 8-1. Calculated annual energy consumption

of alternative systems

System

Fuel Oil

Consumed

Energy Content 3 ) of Fuel OilElectricity

Purchased

Source Energy^)

Consumed

1000 gal 10 6 Btu 10 3 kWh 106 Btu

1 790.1 109,800 0 109,800

2 1182.1 164,300 (5,763)°) 97,400

3 727.5 101,100 0 101,100

4 763.3 106,100 0 106,100

5 284.2 39,500 8,270 134,700

6 375.7 52,220 7,955 143,800

7 323.6 44,980 7,969 136,700

8 284.2 39,500 8,527 137,700

9 0 0 17,890 206,000

10 0 0 17,790 204,900

11 0 0 15,180 174,800

12 0 0 17,790 204,900

a ) converted at 139,000 Btu/gallon.

b) electrical energy converted at 11,515 Btu/kWh (29.6% efficiency).

°) electricity sold to utility; counted as energy credit at power plant.

38
9. JCTE COST DATA AND ANALYSIS

The actual economic data collected for the Summit Plaza TE plant are presented

and analyzed in this section to develop data for use in the system comparisons

and to provide "raw" data for use by others.

A review of the economic data is also made to show the effect of anomalous

conditions on the economic data. Anoraolous conditions include equipment performance problems, improper or inoptimum operating and maintenance practices,

unique institutional factors, etc.

The actual costs are presented that have been incurred as a result of

designing, constructing, owning and operating the total energy plant at Summit

Plaza. The types of actual costs considered include the operating and maintenance (0 & M) costs from the initial plant start-up in January 1974 through

November 1977; initial capital incurred beginning in late 1971 and capital

improvements since plant start-up; and owning costs other than capital

investment

.

The 0 & M costs are condensed into the following categories:

1 . Fuel

2. Contract Maintenance

3. Direct labor and overhead

4. Plant burden

5. Direct Material

6. Miscellaneous

A summary of the 0 & M costs for 1977 are presented in table 9-1. The

importance of the cost of fuel is evidenced by its 59.1 percent share of the

total costs. Unit fuel costs in 1977 were approximately 0.39 $/gal.

Capital equipment costs represent the initial investment as well as capital

improvements and replacements during the life of the plant covered by this

report. These costs are reported in the following categories:

1. Engine-generator

2. Mechanical system

3. Electrical system

4. Distribution

5. Central equipment building (plant)

6. Design Fee

The actual initial costs are presented in table 9-2. These costs were incurred

during plant construction which took place from November 1971 through mid-1974.

No cost is included for the cost of the land occupied by the plant.

The owning costs other than capital financing consists of expenditures for

property taxes and property insurance by the site owner, Starrett Housing

Corporation. These items are based on the entire Summit Plaza complex and do

not separately include the TE plant. The actual expenditures for real estate

39
(December

1976-

November

1977) 3

cO3

O'3i—i 3

Eh I—1

i-H CM CM co o 3 9 • • • • • •

4-J 03 o> 30 o o o O m i—H c

Eh »—H

4-1 3 ^H o o oc r-H in

m 3 03 00 CO »-H CM cn *—1 o <r ,—1 -d- VO O'

PL, #3 * r' * 0 <n *-h -d- vO r-H r-H CO o vO CM co

CO i—

H

30 o On CM 00 o • • • • • • • o e-. co CM m o o CM in CM o U r-H Eh

PL, o 03 CO CM 30 r--

i-H o 03

O co CM vO vO O'

<jy 0, 0 co in CM r-H

r-H o 30 co m 00 00 o

bC • • • • • • 9 3 o -o- e'- o vO o O •H CM en CM i—H o >—1

r-H oo

c_> o co 03 o -d" CM

i—, r—l

<r n- ,-H 30

CM 03 vO CM CO co

</>

— #\ 0 0 #3 03 co e^ 30 e'- c -1

en

0)

4-) M e-. 00 O' 00 in CO o

tn • • • • • • • W bC m in 30 00 CM o o 43 3 30 i—H o 3 •H i—H

C/3 4-1 33 mt 00 CM co 00 CO

PC 00 00 30 CM r-v

m oc

CD CM O' r-H 00m

</> r\ ** #1 0

r—t

CM <)• -d- CM r—l

co *—i

03

•—i

i—H

r- <r

m oc CM o i—1 • • • ® • • • 3 CO 03 CO O' CO o o O vD i—H c

•H i-H 3

4-1 O r^. CM o 30 i-H CM 00 3 o n- O' CM CM 30 r-.

i-H <r 30 o o 00 O' 03 W </> #» »i A •i •* LO e'- r-. e'- <r i~-

-d- en in en i—H 00

CM co

OPo • 1—1

4-J + 3 3 •H 3

•H 3 3 3 3 3 O 3 3 o

>3 & Z3 33 4-1 3 3 3 3 3 3 O 4J H 3 ss 3

bO

O P3 rH 3 3 4-1 4-) rH

4-1 3 U 4-1 o 3

CO rH 4-> 3 3 3 3

c_> <U 3 3 3 3 3 O •H iH •H •H

H

4-J &h CJ o PL,

O s <!

CO Eh o • • • • • • O

CJ r-H CM CO <fr

m 30

H

40
rH3 NO <fr co CO 140 o rH

4-1 »“H 00 -—4 CM ON O co CM i-H uo f*H 00 H </> * * A

r-H CO

</>

333 3

4-1 33 >

•H C_>

m co On 3 O

4H

H 1 00 1 f—H

O rH ,3 o O Pm —t O 3 On u 3 </> a M

333

44 3

tO

X E U bt E a) 3 3 > •H o CO ON r-H 3 o 3 rH 1 f—H 1 *-H 'CI- CM

4t

O rH i—1 O

4-4 bO 3 o 0S CO C rH o »“H O -H i—t

</>

a 33

O E 3 o 3 I—1 1—1

4-1 to o 4-t 3

4-> 3 o >,

•H tH CO a 3 -C

to CO 33 3 O 4-4 3 co bo

CO 3 3 o CO •H CO vO o ON 00 • o 3 4-4 I in | 00 CO CO o

CM

O 3 m r-H 00 1 3 -3 3 co- OS O H ffi •H 3 4-t rH O X 3 3 4-i H 4J

CO3O rH O 3O

iH •H 3 4-1 NO CM co Ml- CO CM in 3 4-1 r-H CO r—H

*“H o m co

4J 3 CO »—H

CM CM CM rH

a 3 </> 0S < rH r—H w </>

to

44 3 3 O • O a

bO 3 rH rH •rH o 3 3 3 3 3 4-1 rH 3

4-t

O

OO 3 3 Pm 3 1 •H •iH X > O 3 3 44 •iH 3 3 3 3 4-t 44 W bO

4-4 •H -3 o 4-4 •rH < 3 bO a 3 3 P3 3 H O 3 3 r-H •H W 3 O

CJ

W £ W o UO E-t

41
taxes are not influenced by the value of equipment used for providing utility

services. In presenting the actual costs as experienced for the JCTE plant,

this report includes no portion of the total Summit Plaza costs for real estate

taxes

.

9.1 UNIT ENERGY COSTS

Unit costs for each of the energy coramidities provided by the plant were calculated using the actual 0 & M and capital cost data. Unit costs for JCTE

are provided primarily as a convenient, widely understood means of presenting

the actual cost data. These data can be used for various types of comparisons.

However, if comparisons are to be made using JCTE actual unit cost data, care must be exercised to insure that:

1. All relevant costs are included or that similar physical/cost accounting

boundaries are drawn so that comparable cost items are included;

2. Building complexes are somewhat similar in their load patterns; and

3. Anomalous conditions are considered.

The unit cost results are shown in table 9-3 as an aggregate 3-year summary of

subsystem unit costs. Year by year data do not vary significantly from the

aggregated values. In all cases, the cost components of fuel, other 0 & M and

capital recovery are provided to facilitate comparison with data which may not

include capital recovery or which may be based on different unit costs for

fuel

.

Table 9-3 shows a very high unit cost for chilled water and moderately high

unit costs for electrical energy and hot water. The high cost for the chilled

water reflects the hight capital recovery associated with a system which operates only four months of the year and the high fuel costs resulting from the

low performance efficiencies discussed previously.

9.2 ASSESSMENT OF TYPICALITY OF DATA

Engineering data and observations were used in an analysis of the cost data to

identify the major variables which have affected actual plant costs, conduct an assessment of the typicality of the cost data, and provide cost adjustments for

typical conditions. The typicality of JCTE economic data should always be con- sidered in analyses which directly use JCTE overall economic results for com- parison or which use the JCTE individual cost component data to synthesize costs

for other TE plants. Some of the areas that are reflected in the actual data

are discussed below.

The total 0 & M cost has continuously increased since January 1974 for fuel and

non-fuel components. Fuel cost increases have resulted from both increased

fuel usage and from rising unit costs for fuel. Fuel usage is largely affected

by site/plant loads and by equipment performance. For non-fuel 0 & M costs,

general increases in costs for on-site labor, contract maintenance and materials

costs have been experienced since the plant was put in service in January 1974.

42
March

1,

1974

through

November

30,

1977

!>* b0

SuCDC

0)

COo

COI O'

0) 42

CO H

OMI- LO

CMCoc

CMo

CM

00

-c

0)u

CD>

•H

i-H

<d T3

Po

bC 3

Pj 4-1 CD P2 c

01 S-i o

CD

43
costs have been experienced since the plant was put in service in January 1974.

The combined cost for on-site labor and contract maintenance has also changed

over time since as many of the 0 & M tasks originally done by contract have

been taken over by plant personnel.

Section 5 of this summary identifies several areas where equipment performance

has not met expected levels. These items may also have a significant effect

on 0 & M costs. Foremost among these is the chiller and heat recovery performance. In addition, the excessive site distribution losses reported in the

Final Report directly affected the site loads imposed on the TE plant and

should be considered when making comparisons with systems serving a similar

site but for which no load data are available.

Capital costs are influenced by the basic design approach, by government

imposed plant design requirements, by local codes and by institutional factors

such as construction/procurement requirements for government-funded projects.

Several specific design decisions were identified which have influenced costs.

For example, in the design stage, a potentially more efficient combination of

absorption and compression chillers was examined but rejected because of

expected reliability problems with engine-driven centrifugal chillers.

44
10. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS

The economics of the Summit Plaza TE plant were investigated on the basis of a comparison with the estimated costs of twelve alternative systems described in

section 7.

10.1 CAPITAL COSTS

The capital cost of each alternative system was estimated based on each piece of

mechanical and electrical equipment in the plant. The type, size and quantity

was costed from cost estimating handbooks and manufacturer's data. These data were based on the cost levels current as of January 1, 1976.

A summary of the capital cost data is provided in table 10-1. These data

indicate that the twelve systems fall into four cost categories which are equivalent to the four basic design approaches; namely:

1. Total energy systems - approximately $7.3 million

2. Conventional central systems - approximately $5.9 million

3. Individual building systems - approximately $5.0 million

4. Individual apartment systems - approximately $4.1 million

The capital costs shown in table 10-1 include all elements for each system as required for the Summit Plaza site. In the central systems (categories 1 and 2 above) , the data include all relevant mechanical and electrical equipment within

the buildings as well as the plant. Therefore the cost of System 1 in table

10-1 is not just the cost of the total energy system plant as shown in section 9

and cannot be compared with the actual TE cost data of table 9-2.

The three "individual apartment" type systems (Systems 10-12) were considered

to have a shorter life (10 years) compared to the 20 year life of the larger

industrial-oriented type of equipment used in the other systems. The replacement cost (in year 10) for these systems is also shown in table 10-1.

10.2 OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Maintenance cost estimates for each alternate system were based on quotations

provided in 1977/1978 by maintenance service contractors for the specific pieces

of major equipment used in each system. For each system, all equipment was considered in developing the maintenance costs including the building distribution and terminal units for the central systems. These data are considered to

be an excellent source of relative costs between alternative systems. The costs

for on-site operating labor, labor overhead, and plant burden were estimated

based on actual JCTE data. Table 10-2 lists the 0 & M costs for each of the

twelve systems. The 0 & M costs for the JCTE were adjusted for the pneumatic

trash collection (PTC) system (not included in system 1). The 0 & M costs were also adjusted for anomalous conditions discussed in section 9.

45
Table 10-1. Summary of capital costs

System No. Description Cost

Initial Investment $1,000

1 Total Energy - Existing 7,331

2 Total Energy - Existing - Selling Power 7,331

3 Total Energy - High Efficiency Engines 7,947

4 Total Energy - Diesel and Absorption

Chillers

7,318

5 Central Plant - Electric Chiller - Oil Burner5,836

6 Central Plant - Absorption Chiller - Oil Burner

5,861

7 Central Plant - Diesel and Electric

Chillers

6,621

8 Building Plant - Electric Chiller - Oil Burner

5,027

9 Building Plant - Electric Chiller and

Boiler

4,963

10 Individual Apartment - Through-thewall Air Conditioners with Electric

Resistance Heat

4,120

n Individual Apartment - Central Heat Pump 4,197

12 Individual Apartment - Central Air

Conditioner and Electric Resistance

Heat

3,989

Replacement Cost

10 Individual Apartment - Through-the-Wall

Air Conditioners with Electric

Resistance Heat

1,294

11 Individual Apartment - Central Heat Pump 1,125

12 Individual Apartment - Central Air

Conditioner and Electric Resistance Heat

Heating & Cooling

919

46
Table 10-2. Operation and maintenance cost estimates

for alternative systems

Total 0 & M Cost

System

Number

Maintenance3 ) Cost

Plant^)

Burden

Operating0 ) Labor Cost Miscellaneous^)less Fuel and

Electricity

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000

1 124.2 23.3 85.0 18.6 251.1

2 145.0 23.3 85.0 21.1 274.5

3 124.2 23.3 85.0 19.0 251.5

4 124.2 23.3 85.0 17.7 250.2

5 80.6 12.3 73.9 12.4 179.2

6 80.6 12.3 73.9 14.6 181.4

7 87.4 12.3 73.9 15.4 189.0

8 83.7 12.3 55.4 11.1 162.5

9 82.4 12.3 55.4 10.1 160.2

10 80.2 12.3 18.5 8.5 119.3

11 70.4 12.3 18.5 8.1 109.3

12 68.1 12.3 18.5 7.8 106.7

a ) Based on detailed cost analysis

k) Based on JCTE data.

c ) Including labor overhead, based on JCTE data and trends.

Consists of property insurance and plant water use.

47
10.3 FUEL AND ENERGY COSTS

The quantity of fuel and electrical energy consumed by the alternative systems

was previously established in section 8. These data, when combined with unit

energy costs, directly result in the total annual energy costs for each of the

alternative systems and are listed in table 10-3. The unit energy costs for

the number 2 fuel oil used in on-site combustion equipment (Systems 1 through

8) are based on the actual unit cost of fuel used by the TE plant for 1975 and

1976 ($2.40 per million Btu) . Significant regional differences in the cost of

oil can exist and should be considered in a national-perspective evaluation.

Electrical unit costs were based on actual utility rate schedule for large user service (which provides the lowest-cost power to the site). The unit cost is

different for each system, being dependent on demand and consumption data,

space heating and night use credits. Utility electric rates also include a rate adjustment charge. Values of 3.2 to 3.5 <j:/kWh resulted from the

calculation.

10.4 ECONOMIC EVALUATION

An economic evaluation was carried out by calculating the value of four measures of economic viability for each of the twelve alternative systems.

The basic cash flow data consists of capital investment costs and annual costs

for each of the alternative systems. These data are shown in table 10-4. The

capital investment costs in this table are based on the data listed in table

10-1 and include the present worth of the replacement cost for Systems 10, 11

and 12. Annual costs for each of the twelve alternative systems include the sum of the total 0 & M costs from table 10-2 and total energy costs from table

10-3.

The 0 & M cost data included in the figures of table 10-4 are direct

expenditures in the first year of operation. Income tax payments or any

effects of financing are not included in these data. The effect of inflation

on annual costs in future years is also not included.

The data of table 10-4 were used to develop incremental data using the lowest

cost system, System 12 as the baseline and the results are shown in table 10-5.

Payback period and return on investment (ROI) were calculated and compared to

estimated decision criteria. ROI considered all costs over a 20-year period,

including income taxes and inflation rates of 12 percent and 8 percent,

respectively, for energy commodities and all other goods and services.

The following conclusions are apparent:

System 8, using fuel oil boilers and electric chillers is a very

attractive alternate system.

• The added investment for System 11 (heat pump). System 5 (central

plant-electric chiller and oil boiler) and System 6 (central plant

absorption chiller and oil boiler) can be attractive under certain

business conditions.

48
Table 10-3. Energy cost for alternative systems

On-site Utility Total

System Fuel Electricity Energy

Number Cost 3 ) Cost Cost

$1,000 $1,000 $1,000

1 263.5 0 263.5

2 394.3 145.

3

b ) 249.0

3 242.6 0 242.6

4 254.6 0 254.6

5 94.8 289.9 384.7

6 125.3 277.4 402.7

7 107.9 277.9 385.8

8 94.8 297.1 391.9

9 0 572.2 572.2

10 0 574.2 574.2

11 0 497.1 497.1

12 0 574.2 574.2

Unit cost of on-site fuel is the same for all systems, $2.40/10 6 Btu

.

Credit for electrical energy sales; at a sales price of 2.52 <J:/kWh.

49
Table 10-4. Actual cash flow data for alternative systems

System

Number

Capital

Investment 3 ) Before Tax

Annual Cost^)

$1,000 $1 ,000

1 7,331 514.6

2 7,331 542.2

3 7,947 494.1

4 7,318 504.8

5 5,836 563.9

6 5,861 584.1

7 6,621 574.8

8 5,027 554.4

9 4,963 732.4

10 5,414 693.5

11 5,321 606.4

12 4,908 680.9

a ) Values for System 10 through 12 include the value of capital replacements in

year 10.

b) First year cost; from tables 10-2 and 10-3.

50
Table 10-5. Comparison of alternative systems using several incremental

investment measures

Initial Simple 3 ^ Discounted

System Investment Payback Nominal

Number Premium Period ROI^)

% Years %

1 49.4 14.6 11.8

2 49.4 17*5 10.3

3 61.9 16.3 10.6

4 49.1 13.7 12 o 2

5 18o9 7.9 17.2

6 19.4 9.8 15.3

7 34.9 16.2 10.7

8 2.4 0.9 68.8

9 1.1 - -

10 10.3 - -

11 8.4 5.5 19.9

12 0 — —

a ) Before income taxes.

Including income taxes and inflation
• The large investment premiums associated with the TF, system (about +50

percent) are not attractive business investments for most conditions.

Other analysis, were conducted to show the sensitivity of the economic results

to changes in assumption on local JCTE conditions.

An analysis based on real ROI (i.e. no annual inflation considered) showed

nearly the same results as the other criteria. Including the investment tax

credit (made under some business scenarios) also did not alter the basic

conclusions

.

Again, the reader is encouraged to refer to the Final Report for further

details

.

52
NB.C >14A (rev. o-78) t Accession

Soltis

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 82-2483

Z. Resident's Accession No,

fx , WsmSi r/ i 1

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Performance Analysis of the Jersey City Total Energy —

Executive Summary

5. Publication Date April 1982

Fsr?9:TM»g Organization Code

‘ f V- *

" 7. AUTHOR(S)

C. W. Hurley and J. D. Ryan

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

10. Project/?ask/Wortt Unit Mo.

.

, « 11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Division of Energy, Building Technology and Standards

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, D.C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

| | Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) Under the sponsorship of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) , the

National Bureau of Standards gathered engineering and economic data from an apartment/

commercial complex located on a 6.35 acre (2.6 hectare) site in Jersey City, New Jersey

The National Bureau of Standards was responsible for instrumenting the plant and site

buildings and recording engineering data utilizing an automatic data acquisition

system (DAS). The DAS was put on-line in April 1975.

Economic, reliability and environmental data were also collected and analyzed by NBS in

conjunction with an analysis of the engineering data. This report presents an "Executive Summary" of the final report on the performance analysis of the Jersey City Total

Energy Project. The reader is encouraged to refer to that final report for further

details

.

The analysis of the engineering data clearly indicates a significant savings in fuel

by using the total energy concept in the plant. Several areas were also identified by

this analysis where minor modifications in the plant operation could result in additional fuel savings. Three of the modifications have already been incorporated in the

present plant operational procedures.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons)

Absorption chillers; boiler performance; diesel engine performance; engine-generator

efficiency; integrated utility system; total energy systems-economic and engineering

analysis; waste heat recovery

18. AVAILABILITY [X} Unlimited

f~ ] For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

f ] Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

fXj Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

59

22. Price

$9.00

USCOMM-DC