University of Maryland College Park

31
Turning Renewal Challenges into Opportunity: Campus Utility Plant and Master Plan FMA Future Facilities Summit October 18, 2016

Transcript of University of Maryland College Park

Page 2: University of Maryland College Park

Learning Objectives

• Case study of a combined utility master plan and condition assessment to identify long term costs

• Preparation of near and long term implementation plans and using continuous commissioning to ensure intended results

• Tools for condition assessments

Page 3: University of Maryland College Park

University of Maryland College Park• Campus Growth

– Existing campus ~13.5 million gross square feet – Near term identified 17% increase in building area

• Energy Infrastructure – Central Energy Plant (CEP)

• Combustion Turbines• Heat Recovery Steam generator• Boilers

– Steam distribution– 13.8 kV Electrical distribution– 13 District chilled water plants (SCUBs)

Page 4: University of Maryland College Park

Background

• Development of the study– 2012: Developed Utility Master Plan (did not include assessment of

infrastructure)– 2014: Assessed major equipment in Energy Plant – 2015: Assessed electrical and steam distribution

• Third Party Operates– CEP– Steam distribution– Electrical distribution– 1 of 13 SCUBs

• Current contract with third party will end by fiscal year 2019– Potential to extend contract an additional 5 years

Page 5: University of Maryland College Park

Goals of Assessment and Studies• Determine upgrade needs for the next 25-year phase of operation

– Include campus growth

• Synchronize with campus goals– Resiliency– Minimized financial impact– Sustainability

Page 6: University of Maryland College Park

Agenda – Utility Master Plan• Steam System Review

– Current condition– Potential future options

• Electrical System Review• Chilled Water System Review

Page 7: University of Maryland College Park

Steam Distribution Assessment• Steam Distribution Assessment

– Manhole survey – Thermal aerial flyover– Piping segment age / general condition summary

• Renewal– Piping & manhole

• Consequences• Options (District Hot Water)

– Building steam use– Energy savings for hot water loop– Updated steam piping costs

Page 8: University of Maryland College Park

Steam Manhole Survey Summary

Manhole C-125Uninsulated / Flooded

Manhole C-155Uninsulated / Flooded

Manhole STM-123Structural Repair

Manhole 510Condensate Leak

Page 9: University of Maryland College Park

Steam Manhole Survey Site

Capital RenewalSteam Manhole Costs:$~12 Million

Page 10: University of Maryland College Park

Steam and Condensate PipingSteam Piping Condensate Piping

Page 11: University of Maryland College Park

Steam Piping Renewal

• Reactive Piping Replacement (0-5 years): $17.4 million

• Proactive Piping Replacement (6-15 years): $62.9 million

• Total Piping Costs: $80.3 million

• Manholes Upgrades Costs: $11.7 million

• Total Steam Distribution Costs: $92.0 million

Page 12: University of Maryland College Park

Central Energy Plant Assessment

• Combustion Turbine (not completed by RMF)

• Back Pressure Steam Turbine (not completed by RMF)

• Heat Recovery Steam Generators

• Boilers

• Deaerator Nos. 1, 2,3

• Condensate Receiver

• No. 2 Fuel Oil Piping

• Polishers/ Softeners

Page 13: University of Maryland College Park

Capital Renewal for Central Energy Plant

Page 14: University of Maryland College Park

Existing Chilled Water SCUB SitesChiller

Location

Replacement Interval (age > 25 yrs)

0-5 yrs(Tons)

6-10 yrs(Tons)

11-15 yrs(Tons)

> 15 yrs(Tons)

SCUB’s 5,120 10,490 --- 3,925

Buildings 2,600 250 --- 5,200

Total 7,720 10,740 --- 9,125

28% 39% --- 33%

Page 15: University of Maryland College Park

Capital Renewal / Future Chiller

Total Replacement costs: $51.8

Total costs: $60.7

New costs: $8.9

Page 16: University of Maryland College Park

Electrical Manhole Survey Summary• Total No. of Manholes:

~360 manholes• Manholes Surveyed:

52 Manholes• Minor maintenance

items identified

Page 17: University of Maryland College Park

Building Transformers62 Building Transformers (36 buildings surveyed)

A.V. Williams South B

Epply

Physics

Page 18: University of Maryland College Park

Splice Testing• Modular Splice installations was concerning due to recent failures.• RMF inspected 2 of the 5 locations in question• Findings

– Installation Issues– Deterioration of components– Possible Failure Points

• Deteriorated splice components were replaced• Entire splice assembly was tested and placed back into service.

– Feeder 4 still had low test results on Phase A.

Page 19: University of Maryland College Park

Future Feeder Capacity

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

FDR 1 FDR 2 FDR 3 FDR 4 FDR 5 FDR 6 FDR 7 FDR 8 FDR 9 FDR 10

FEED

ER C

APAC

ITY

(KVA

)

Remaining Capacity

Future Load

Existing Measured Peak Load

(9,311 kVA)

Page 20: University of Maryland College Park

Base Option Recommendation

Page 21: University of Maryland College Park

Alternative Considered• Steam Distribution Alternatives• Energy Plant Alternatives• Interconnect Existing SCUBs• Islanding CEP from Utility System

Page 22: University of Maryland College Park

Alternative to Steam: Building Steam Use

Page 23: University of Maryland College Park

Hot Water Analysis

Page 24: University of Maryland College Park

Hot Water Costs Comparison

STEAM PIPING COSTS HOT WATER PIPING COSTS ANNUAL SAVINGS

EX. PIPING (0-5 YRS) EX. PIPING (6-15 YRS)

HOT HOT EST.TOTAL WATER WATER TOTAL NO. OF STEAM DIST. TOTAL

PIPING PIPING PIPING PIPING STEAM PIPING PIPING CONVERTOR UPGRADE STEAM MAINT. ENERGY FUEL ANNUAL SIMPLEOPTION SCENARIO DESCRIPTION LENGTH COSTS LENGTH COSTS COSTS LENGTH COSTS COSTS COSTS TRAPS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS SAVINGS PAYBACK

NO. (LF) ($) (LF) ($) ($) (LF) ($) ($) ($) (NO.) ($/YR) (MMBTU/YR) ($/YR) ($/YR) (YRS)

1DISTRICT

STEAM SYSTEM 1,936 2,614,000 1,650 3,085,500 5,699,500 --- --- --- 5,699,500 15

2ZONE 1

HOT WATER SYSTEM 390 729,300 --- --- 729,300 3,000 3,780,000 675,000 5,184,300 2 1,950 3,840 33,300 35,250 (15)

3DISTRICT

STEAM SYSTEM 884 1,166,000 7,000 13,090,000 14,256,000 --- --- --- 14,256,000 32

4ZONE 2

HOT WATER SYSTEM 500 935,000 --- --- 935,000 7,000 13,300,000 1,485,000 15,720,000 2 4,500 8,060 69,900 74,400 20

5BOTH

STEAM SYSTEM 2,820 3,780,000 8,650 16,175,500 19,955,500 --- --- --- 19,955,500 46

6ZONES

HOT WATER SYSTEM 890 1,664,300 --- --- 1,664,300 10,000 17,080,000 2,160,000 20,904,300 4 6,300 11,900 103,130 109,430 9

Page 25: University of Maryland College Park

Energy Plant AlternativesReplace Existing Cogeneration with:• Smaller units• Same size units• Larger Units

Page 26: University of Maryland College Park

Energy Plant Recommendation• Larger cogeneration units

– More economical when compared to purchasing power– Higher first cost– Has a higher carbon footprint than purchasing “green power”– Largest units may require SCR or Urea

Page 27: University of Maryland College Park

Chilled Water InterconnectionBase Option

• Replacement cost: $36 M• Distribution costs: $ ---

M• New chiller cost: $ 9

M

Interconnection of SCUBs

• Replacement cost: $36 M• Distribution costs: $ 9 M• New chiller cost: $ ---

M

• Additional benefits include more efficient operation with part loading existing equipment

• Less maintenance required

Page 28: University of Maryland College Park

Recommended Alternative

Page 29: University of Maryland College Park

Simplified Heating Schematic

Page 30: University of Maryland College Park

Potential Funding Opportunities• New Operating Agreement for Cogeneration system• Bond for steam and hot water piping• Energy savings from CHP and Piping

– Renewable Energy District or Renewable energy

– Controls Integration project

– Resiliency projects