Suchergebnisse

On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy blew through the largely populated areas of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. It was, at the time, the largest storm in the region's history. While many areas lost electricity from the electrical grid, the few buildings equipped with Combined Heat and Power ("CHP") remained lit and heated. For example, many residential and commercial facilities lost power for days after the storm, but natural gas powered CHP systems at the Co-Op City apartment complex and New York University, Fairfield University, and Princeton University kept their buildings functioning. According to Ross Tomlin, an employee of Gulf Coast Clean Energy Application Center of the Department of Energy, "because CHP relies on natural gas delivered through underground pipelines, [the systems] can weather just about any storm." But minimizing the effects of natural disasters is only one of CHP's many benefits. CHP is the process of capturing heat from existing heat sources, such as boilers, and using the heat to power energy sources, such as steam-powered turbines, to create electricity, hot water, and heat. The technology not only reduces energy costs through efficiency—at least twenty to thirty percent more efficient than separate heat and power systems—but it also protects the environment by burning less fuel, and thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. While this technology has seen continued barriers over the years, one company, Recycled Energy Development ("RED"), recognized that "the US lags far behind the world leaders when it comes to producing energy through [CHP]" and has taken steps to utilize the technology. The average increase in energy costs for households between 2001 and 2012 was forty-three percent. This increase in energy costs affects consumers and businesses alike, with electricity costs topping many businesses' lists of expenses. America undeniably faces a severe energy crisis both in the private sector, due to rising energy costs, and in the public sector, due to gridlock in government. Among the many green energy technologies currently available, CHP is "the least sexy" and considered "a 'homeless' suite of technologies" when compared to solar, wind, and hydropower energy systems. Recently, however, the federal government gave CHP a second look as it attempted to educate state governments and companies about the benefits of the CHP technology. The severe lack of effective and efficient state government incentive programs is hindering the CHP technology from reaching its full potential of providing cheap, sustainable power to businesses. This Comment will argue that, given the policy benefits of the CHP technology, the federal government should create an organization to establish and monitor a CHP legislative blueprint with three financial incentive program options; states should establish two of those three financial incentive programs; and states should include CHP in their Renewable Portfolio Standards. This Comment will analyze the financial barriers hindering effective widespread use of CHP among private sector companies, examine current effective and ineffective state financial incentive programs, and determine which financial incentive regulations the federal government should include in the legislative blueprint. Because this is mainly a state law issue, no "one size fits all" approach will suffice; however, a legislative blueprint can educate state legislatures about the financial incentives that can be put in place to allow for effective and widespread use of the CHP technology. Such a legislative blueprint must include: 1) a rebate for installed costs of the technology, 2) a feed-in tariff to entice companies to re-funnel excess power through the grid system, and 3) a provision of grants to companies who successfully complete CHP installations. Section II includes a background discussion of the CHP technology that will help facilitate an understanding of how the technology works and what financial incentives previously existed. Section III includes an analysis of financial incentives, illustrated by state examples that will help analyze how the incentives operate. Section IV includes an analysis of states with little financial incentive programs and demonstrates why it hinders the CHP technology. Section V discusses the proposed solution to this problem, as introduced above.

It is now officially recognised that the provision of combined heat and electrical-power generation plants in urban areas can improve the efficiency with which primary energy is consumed. An approach to assess the feasibility of such projects is exemplified by a case study of Leeds. Particular attention is given to the possible social and economic impacts, and it is argued that there is a need to go beyond a conventional financial accounting approach.

There are many different methods for the allocation of CO2 emissions in Combined Heat and Power plants. The choice of allocation method has a great effect on energy pricing and CO2 allocation in Combined Heat and Power plants. The power bonus method is the main method used for the allocation of CO2 emissions between heat and power production in the European Union and given as a standard. Aside from this method, six different allocation methods were tested on the Combined Cycle Power Plant in this study. Operational and design parameters of the Combined Cycle Power Plant were taken into consideration during analysis. The District Heating system, with an annual heat load of 27 GWh and maximum heat effect requirement of 14 MW, was chosen for the simulation model. This load was represented by the university campus. The energy source for District Heating was a Combined Cycle Power Plant with supplementary firing technology and natural gas as a fuel. The modeling of the system was carried out by the simulation software Aspen HYSYS, while data post-processing was done by MATLAB. Sensitivity analysis of the different allocation methods was performed for the Combined Cycle Power Plant under a yearly heat and electricity load. It was noted that different allocation methods produce different allocation factors. The differences between heat allocation factors for design and operational conditions were small. The most sensitive method was the power bonus method. The study showed that the decision regarding allocation method should be carefully analyzed before implementation in the standards and different policies, because benefits from cogeneration technology and distribution systems should be enabled. The results obtained in this study can be used by designers of Combined Heat and Power systems and policy makers, as a tool for developing an emission trading system for Combined Heat and Power plants and for the pricing of heat and power. ; acceptedVersion ; © 2015. This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

District heating (DH) and combined heat and power (CHP) are often considered complementary green technologies (DH-CHP) that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are, however, complex given their operation at the intersection of shifting socio-spatial relations and political power struggles. We investigate the political processes behind the diffusion (and blocked diffusion) of DH and CHP in Sweden from 1945 until 2011, considered through the lens of Jessop, Brenner and Jones' (2008) Territory, Place, Scale and Networks (TPSN) framework. Foregrounding the socio-spatial constitution of policy decisions, we examine Sweden's changing patterns of DH and CHP adoption. First, we present the TPSN framework that considers space as simultaneously a structuring principle, enabling and constraining action, as well as a field of operation in which agency is exercised. Second, we examine the socio-spatial structuration of energy systems. Third, we analyse how the changing socio-spatial constitution of each socio-technical system affects key actors' interests and actions, including the spatial strategies they develop to advance their interests. District heating rapidly diffused across Swedish municipalities in large part because it was considered to be urban infrastructure aligned with the mission of municipalities and was not in direct competition with other actors supplying heat. CHP electricity generation, on the other hand, was initially seen as a benefit to municipal utilities, but was later considered a threat to the interests of large-scale utilities and blocked, only to gain favour again when changing sociospatial conditions made CHP an asset to large-scale utilities. Our analysis suggests that technological diffusion and blockage is far from a straightforward matter. It requires examination of the dynamics of multi-level governance and overlapping socio-technical systems. Socio-technical regimes are in constant evolution and actors struggle to adapt to new circumstances. Socio-technical systems are not merely material systems, but an expression of dynamic power relations and adaptation strategies.

A combined heat and power (CHP) system is an efficient and clean way to generate power (electricity). Heat produced by the CHP system can be used for water and space heating. The CHP system which uses hydrogen as fuel produces zero carbon emission. Its' efficiency can reach more than 80% whereas that of a traditional power station can only reach up to 50% because much of the thermal energy is wasted. The other advantages of CHP systems include that they can decentralize energy generation, improve energy security and sustainability, and significantly reduce the energy cost to the users. This paper presents the economic benefits of using a CHP system in the domestic environment. For this analysis, natural gas is considered as potential fuel as the hydrogen fuel cell based CHP systems are rarely used. UK government incentives for CHP systems are also considered as the added benefit. Results show that CHP requires a significant initial investment in returns it can reduce the annual energy bill significantly. Results show that an investment may be paid back in 7 years. After the back period, CHP can run for about 3 years as most of the CHP manufacturers provide 10 year warranty.

Das Thema Energieflexibilität und Anpassung der eigenerzeugten Energie an die Energieerzeugung aus regenerativen Energien gewinnt an Bedeutung. Regulierbare Eigenerzeugungsanlagen können zur Stabilisierung des Netzes einen enormen Beitrag leisten. Der Aufsatz zeigt, welchen Effekt der Einsatz von BHWK auf die Galvanikbranche hat und wie nicht nur die eigenen Energiekosten reduziert, sondern auch die Möglichkeit geschaffen wird, auf Signale der Energiewirtschaft zu reagieren, ohne die Energieversorgung zu unterbrechen.
 
Energy flexibility and adaptation of self-generated energy to energy production from renewable energies is becoming more important. Adjustable distributed power plants can provide a huge impact on stabilizing the power grid. This article displays the effects of combined heat and power generation on the electroplating industry. It demonstrates how to reduce energy costs and also how to find ways to react to signals of the energy industry without interrupting the energy supply.

A combined heat and power (CHP) system is an efficient and clean way to generate power (electricity). Heat produced by the CHP system can be used for water and space heating. The CHP system which uses hydrogen as fuel produces zero carbon emission. Its' efficiency can reach more than 80% whereas that of a traditional power station can only reach up to 50% because much of the thermal energy is wasted. The other advantages of CHP systems include that they can decentralize energy generation, improve energy security and sustainability, and significantly reduce the energy cost to the users. This paper presents the economic benefits of using a CHP system in the domestic environment. For this analysis, natural gas is considered as potential fuel as the hydrogen fuel cell based CHP systems are rarely used. UK government incentives for CHP systems are also considered as the added benefit. Results show that CHP requires a significant initial investment in return it can reduce the annual energy bill significantly. Results show that an investment may be paid back in 7 years. After the back period, CHP can run for about 3 years as most of the CHP manufacturers provide 10 year warranty.