Optimisation of Combined heat and power for District heating

A dissertation submitted to The University of Manchester

for the degree of MSc in Advanced Process Design for Energy

in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences

2010

Paul J Fleetwood

School of Chemical Engineering and Applied Science

Contents

1. Literature survey ......................................................................................................................9

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................9
1.2 The application of district heating (DH) technology ..................................................... 11
1.3 The use of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as an energy source .................................... 12
1.4 Modelling of Rankine Cycle CHP plants ........................................................................ 13
1.5 Optimisation and integration of CHP and district heating systems .............................. 14
1.6 Cost of energy ............................................................................................................... 15
1.7 Heat demand profiles ................................................................................................... 16
1.8 Heat storage .................................................................................................................. 17
1.9 Description of the Sheffield energy recovery facility .................................................... 18
2. Modelling of process and thermal demand .......................................................................... 21
2.1 Characterisation of waste for combustion model ........................................................ 21
2.2 Modelling of combustion process ................................................................................. 22
2.3 Determination for material flows into the incinerator ................................................. 23
2.4 Defining steam flows for part loading .......................................................................... 24
2.5 Modelling the incinerator and boiler using HYSYS ....................................................... 25
2.6 Modelling the SNCR NOx treatment ............................................................................. 26
2.7 Modelling the multiple extraction turbine using HYSYS ............................................... 27
2.8 Defining turbine characteristics .................................................................................... 27
2.9 Estimation of stage efficiencies using Regression Parameters. .................................... 29
2.10 Model of Air condenser ................................................................................................ 30
2.11 Additional model assumptions ..................................................................................... 31
2.12 Overall description and use of the HYSYS model .......................................................... 31
2.13 Defining heat demand profiles for Sheffield................................................................. 32
2.14 Heat storage .................................................................................................................. 33
3. Results ................................................................................................................................... 34
3.1 Validation of model....................................................................................................... 34
3.1.1 Properties of flue gas ............................................................................................ 34
3.1.2 Adiabatic flame temperature ................................................................................ 35
3.1.3 Steam cycle ........................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Model results - Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................... 39

2
 3.2.1 Combustible (dry / ash free MSW) component composition ............................... 39
3.2.2 Moisture and ash content of the MSW feed to incinerator ................................. 39
3.2.3 Fluctuating ambient air temperature ................................................................... 41
3.2.4 Primary air pre-heat temperature ........................................................................ 42
3.2.5 Return temperature of DH condensate ................................................................ 42
3.2.6 Pressure of steam to DH heat exchanger ............................................................. 43
3.2.7 Excess air ............................................................................................................... 44
3.2.8 Power output ........................................................................................................ 45
3.3 Model results - Current operating characteristics ........................................................ 46
3.3.1 Operating curves ................................................................................................... 46
3.3.2 Minimum price of electricity produced using auxiliary boilers ............................ 46
4. Optimisation ......................................................................................................................... 48
4.1 Part loading incinerator boiler ...................................................................................... 48
4.2 Use of peak load boilers ................................................................................................ 50
4.3 Optimising performance using TES ............................................................................... 54
4.4 Summary of Methods examined to improve plant performance ................................. 56
5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 58
5.1 The use of HYSYS as a modelling tool for power generation ........................................ 58
5.2 Plant operation and modification ................................................................................. 59
6. Future research possibilities ................................................................................................. 62

3
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Past and predicted UK natural gas demand 9
Figure 1.2 – Heat demand by sector as a percentage of total energy demand in UK 10
Figure 1.3 – Fuel used for electricity generation in the UK 10
Figure 1.4 – Typical heat demand profile for a district heating system 16
Figure 1.5 – Heat exported to the Sheffield district heating network in 2006 17
Figure 1.6 – Schematic for Sheffield energy recovery facility 19
Figure 2.1 – HYSYS representation of incinerator and boiler 25
Figure 2.2 – HYSYS representation the extraction turbine 27
Figure 3.1 – Operating curves for part load conditions on the incinerator 46
Figure 3.2 – Examination of cost of producing electricity using the auxiliary boilers 47
Figure 4.1 – Incinerator part load, power output and thermal efficiency for
specified DH thermal demand 48
Figure 4.2 – Power output and thermal efficiency for 100% load on incinerator 49
Figure 4.3 – The effect of additional peak load boilers on efficiency 51
Figure 4.4 – Estimated daily additional income with increased peak load boiler
capacity for a day in winter 51
Figure 4.5 – Estimated daily additional income with increased peak load boiler
capacity for an average day in summer 51
Figure 4.6 – Effect of electricity price on potential income with additional peak load
boiler capacity on an average winter day 52
Figure 4.7 - Effect of electricity price on potential income with additional peak load
boiler on an average winter day 53
Figure 4.8 - Potential annual income increase with additional peak load boiler
capacity 54

4
List of Tables
Table 1.1 – Main fuel sources for heat generation in the UK 10
Table 1.2 – Cost of energy in the UK 15
Table 2.1 – Estimated composition of MSW 21
Table 2.2 – Combustion products of MSW 23
Table 2.3 – Molar ratios of feeds to incinerator 24
Table 2.4 – Relationship between steam flows 24
Table 2.5 – Heat losses from the incinerator and boiler 26
Table 2.6 – Turbine efficiencies without district heating calculated by HYSYS 28
Table 2.7 – Turbine efficiencies with district heating calculated by HYSYS 28
Table 2.8 – Willans’ line and efficiency correlation for Extraction 1 30
Table 2.9 – Willans’ line and efficiency correlation for Extraction 2 30
Table 2.10 – Estimated heat demand ranges on Sheffield energy recovery facility 32
Table 3.1 – Comparison of flue gas composition calculation methods 35
Table 3.2 – Comparison of adiabatic flame temperature calculation methods 35
Table 3.3 – Stream flowrates comparison for 100% boiler load with full district
heating between model and mass balance 37
Table 3.4 – Stream flowrates comparison for 100% boiler load with no district
heating between model and mass balance 38
Table 3.5 – Comparison of calorific values for possible MSW components 39
Table 3.6 – MSW composition used for the 4 analysed cases 40
Table 3.7 - Calculated feed ratios used in the HYSYS model 40
Table 3.8 – Effect of fuel composition on boiler performance and DH heat supply 41
Table 3.9 – System performance with ambient air conditions 42
Table 3.10 – System performance with ambient air conditions 42
Table 3.11 – System performance with changes to DH condensate return temperature 43
Table 3.12 – Effect of DH steam supply pressure and deaerator pressure 44
Table 3.13 – Effect of varying excess air to the incinerator 44
Table 3.14 – Comparison of power output predicted by model with that stated in
Documentation 45
Table 4.1 – Benefits of using heat storage on current demand profiles 55

5
Abstract
Over the next 10 years production from UK’s indigenous fossil fuel supplies are
expected to fall substantially. This study examines the effectiveness of using municipal
waste as a replacement energy source for supplying both power and heat to consumers.
The HYSYS process simulation package was used for modelling a waste to energy plant
connected to district heating network in Sheffield. The study found this software to be a
suitable tool for determining operating trends, including part load operations on the
boiler and turbines. Efficiencies were examined under thermal loads representative of
different seasonal operating conditions. It was found that the Sheffield plant could
significantly enhance its overall performance and potential income by the use of heat
storage and increasing the peak load boiler capacity.

6
Declaration
I, Paul J Fleetwood, declare that no portion of work referred to in the dissertation has
been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this
or any other university or other institute of learning.

Intellectual Property Statement

i. The author of this dissertation (including any appendices and/or schedules to
this dissertation) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he
has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including
for administrative purposes.

ii. Copies of this dissertation, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or
electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in
accordance with licensing agreements which University has from time to time. This
page must form part of any such copies made.

iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other
intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright
works in the dissertation, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may
be described in this dissertation, may not be owned by the author and may be owned
by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be
made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the
relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.

iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this dissertation, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property
and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP
Policy .

(see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant

Dissertation restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University
Library’s regulations

(see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s

Guidance for the Presentation of Dissertations.

7
This dissertation is dedicated to Mum and Dad in appreciation of their
support.

8
1. Literature survey
1.1 Background
In recent years a large portion of the UK’s energy requirements has been served by
abundant gas reserves found around its coast. In the year 2000 the UK was the largest
producer of natural gas in the EU and a net exporter. By 2015 the UK is expected to
have to import around 60% of its natural gas requirements [1], with an ever greater
proportion of this in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) delivered by ship from
increasing remote locations. Concerns over energy security, competition from fast
developing countries over finite natural resources and international agreements on the
environment gives new impetuous to use fuels as efficiently as possible.

Figure 1.1 – Past and predicted UK natural gas demand

(source the National Grid 2008)

In 2007 41% of the entire energy consumption of the UK was used to generate heat
with much of this demand being met by natural gas [2]. See figure 1.2

9
 Domestic
22%

Industry
12%
Other energy
consumption
59%
Services
7%

Figure 1.2 – Heat demand by sector as a percentage of total energy demand in the UK

Sector Source of heat (%)

Gas Oil Electricity
Services 43 6.2 12
Industry 32 6 7
Domestic 69 11 14

Table 1.1 – Main fuel source for heat generation in the UK

Figure 1.3 – Fuel used for electricity generation in the UK

Direct use of natural gas is not the only method of efficiently providing heat to the
customer. The most common way generating electricity involves consuming a fuel to
generate steam which in turn drives turbines. This process is a maximum of 40%

10
efficient steam turbine plants as the latent heat is not used and is normally released to
the atmosphere through cooling towers. Combined cycle gas plants are more thermally
efficient at around 50%. Steam generated in the exhaust heat recovery system drives
steam turbines. The condensers on this cycle then lose the latent heat when the
condensate is formed. Most forms of energy production in the UK involves the loss of
latent heat to the environment.

1.2 The application of district heating (DH) technology

District heating (DH) provides a sizable potential sink for excess heat produced by the
power industry. There are very few networks in the UK mainly due to the competition
from historically abundant and relatively cheap natural gas supplies from the North Sea
[3]. As previously discussed this situation is changing and is likely to make the economic
conditions more favourable for district heating systems. This technology, most recently
and with great success, has been employed in Denmark. Over the past couple of
decades DH infrastructure has been installed to supply 60% of Danish homes [4]. In the
UK approximately 2% of heating requirements comes from CHP systems including DH
[4]. With diminishing indigenous reserves of fossil fuels, CHP with DH provides a
possible and proven route to help secure our future energy needs.

In addition, international obligations on carbon reduction will require the UK to

significantly alter the means of electrical generation. Targets for greenhouse gases
(GHGs) are to be 20% of the 1990 level by 2050 and UK government policy is now
committed to large scale adoption of renewable energy, 15% by 2020 from the present
2% [5]. It may be questioned how CHP would be relevant to a scenario where burning of
fossil fuels is reduced to such levels. Even optimistic energy savings calculations would
indicate that around 50% of current CO2 levels could only be achieved on any particular
installation with CHP.

Two main arguments support the use of CHP and installation of DH. Firstly, proposed
medium term targets can be achieved by using this inherently more efficient and
responsive technology taking advantage of its ability to assist during peak load demand.
Secondly, DH systems gives the potential to store energy as heat during periods of
excess production to be distributed during periods of reduced energy availability. The

11
heat generated can come from CHP plants and other sources of energy. This is
particularly relevant to certain renewable energy sources such as wind and solar where
supply is intermittent and unpredictable. The development of DH systems provides a
method of future integration of low carbon technologies for a significant and important
part of our national energy requirement.

1.3 The use of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) as an energy source

In recent times, the dominant route for waste treatment has been landfill. Presently
27.3 million tonnes of municipal waste is produced in the UK per year, 50.3% of which
goes to landfill [6]. It has been estimated that 90% of this material is recoverable
through recycling, composting or energy recovery. The UK is committed to reducing its
landfill through joint European directive to 35% of what was produced in 1995
(26million tonnes) by 2020 [6]. By using waste as an energy source two problems are
addressed, the disposal of waste and lessening the dependence of the UK on fossil fuels.

Currently 12% of MSW in the UK is used as fuel [6], although very little is used for DH.
Often incineration plants are located near large population centres that would facilitate
the transport of heat to potential users. Incineration has also the advantage of being
the best practical way of disposing of hazardous materials such as highly flammable and
biological wastes.

Municipal waste has a LHV value of around 9.0 MJ/kg when burned [8]. This compares
to 34.6 MJ/kg for anthracite and around 40 MJ/kg for fuel oil [7]. When combusted solid
waste is reduced in volume by 90%, the rest is converted mainly into gaseous emissions
of water vapour and carbon dioxide. Some combustion products such as NOx, SOx and
compounds of chlorine are hazardous with their release to the environment strictly
controlled, therefore downstream treatments are often always necessary. Particulates
carried with the flue gas from the combustion chamber must also be filtered.

Incineration is not the only method for producing energy from waste. Pyrolysis,
gasification and anerobic digestion amongst others are discussed by Williams [8]. Many
of these technologies are in their infancy and have not been proved on a large scale
commercial basis. Currently there is great interest in gasification where syngas is

12
produced from MSW that then drives gas turbines. There is one large scale trial in the
UK on the Isle of Wight and number in Germany. Such plant could also be
interconnected with DH networks in the future.

1.4 Modelling of Rankine Cycle CHP plants

During the past couple of decades interest in CHP and DH systems has grown in many
parts of the world. Research has been directed towards investigating the technicalities
of bringing a relatively old technology up to date, enhancing its application and
increasing its efficiency. With this renewed interest, models of cogeneration simulating
part loading and optimisation specific to certain situations have become more
prominent in literature. This builds on previous work concerning generalised modelling
of CHP found in literature [9], or as a guide for practical application by Fawkes et al [10].

District heating systems are characterised by large variations in demands over the day
and have significant seasonal variations. These environmental conditions directly affect
the operation of a CHP plant. To more fully evaluate the economics and efficiencies of
CHP and district heating systems knowledge of the part-load performance of the plant is
important.

The simulation of a Rankine model power plant using commercially available software
was previously undertaken by Ong’iro [11] and is consistently cited in relevant literature
to this day. Aspen was used to simulate the integration of district heating onto a typical
power plant that used a turbine with 4 extraction points. The main purpose of the
exercise was to examine the effect on power generation of a changing thermal load
from a district heating system. The model used modular approach, creating pieces of
equipment through connecting a library of in built unit functions.

In 2005 Savola and Keppo [12] modelled the off-design performance of 4 small scale
CHP plants in Finland. Process modelling software was used to simulate the plants using
modules from the incorporated process library. These methods of simulating Rankine
cycle models have proved to be reliable representations when verified with data from
actual plant measurements.

13
Brammer et al [13] used HYSYS to successfully model simple Rankine cycles and
reported good correspondence with other theoretical methods of calculation. Dincer
and Al-Muslim [14] modelled an actual power plant with HYSYS to examine the effect of
changing certain operating parameters. They found that changes made to the plant
were within 10% of the model predictions.

HYSYS was used to model a solid waste incineration plant driving a simple steam cycle
by Herrera et al [15]. The emphasis of the study was to examine the lifecycle and the
environmental impact of combusting solid waste for energy. Cimini et al [16] used
Aspen Plus simulation software to assess its suitability for modelling cogeneration using
waste and other non conventional fuels. The model also looked at downstream
treatment of the flue gases, including the removal of solids. Results were compared to
actual plant operations and it was concluded that such software was a suitable tool for
design of new plants and the modification of existing plants.

Many design companies now use a modelling package known as SteamPro [17]. This
software is specifically designed for use by the power industry. The database includes
information on equipment from specific manufacturers and also costing information so
that performance and economics of proposed plants can more easily be assessed.

1.5 Optimisation and integration of CHP and district heating systems

The use of optimisation techniques has been extensively applied to CHP and DH
systems. The characteristics of the curves relating to the heat to power ratio have
previously been described by Sundberg et al [18] in a linear form for process
optimisation. Various loads with their efficiencies, capital cost, fuel prices and the
optional operation of supplementary heat sources are described in mixed integer linear
programming (MILP) expressions so that system costs could be minimised. Time
dependent data such as electricity prices was also incorporated. Zhao et al [19] also
described fuel consumption and power as a linear relationship. The emphasis of the
study was on the use of thermal storage to even out a mismatch between heat and
power demand. In Sweden minimisation of costs of heat and power supply to
municipalities has been explored by Rolfsman [20] using MILP with an emphasis on
energy shifting using thermal storage and supplementary boilers. Casisi et al [22] used

14
MILP to consider the operation and layout of a district heating system using micro gas
turbines including allowances for heat losses during heat transportation.

Lund et al examined the effectiveness of CHP and DH systems for the integration of
renewable sources of power [23]. A number of related papers have been published,
with the work often based upon a software package known as EnergyPlan [24]. This
package is generally used on a relatively large scale allowing a region’s energy power
production units to be optimised with changing energy demand and production
patterns that often fluctuate due to environmental conditions.

Much of the optimisation work put into practice has used gas engine and boiler
combinations that operate on a fixed load and can be turned on and off to meet
demand. This has been vividly demonstrated in Denmark under the auspices of the
DESIRE Programme [25]. Here real time and historical data can be viewed on the output
of CHP plants and the status of heat storage. Spot electricity prices are also monitored
by the system so that power produced can be sold at higher prices.

1.6 Cost of energy

Information on the cost of energy is reviewed on a quarterly basis by the UK
Department of Energy and Climate Change for domestic and industrial use [26].
Relevant figures along with the agreed electrical feed in tariff with the national grid for
the Sheffield facility are given in table 1.2 and are used in later calculations.

Energy source Description of consumer Cost / Sale price

p/kWh
Natural gas Domestic / National average (2009) 4.0 [26]
Natural gas Medium sized industrial (2009) 2.53 [26]
Fuel oil Medium sized industrial (2009) 3.15 [26]
Electricity Domestic use / National average (2009) 14.0 [26]
Electrical Agreed sale price to the national grid (until 2013) 5.8 [27]
Table 1.2 – Cost of energy in the UK

No direct information could be found for the sale price of heat in the UK. It can be
expected that the value of heat at the consumer will be greater than for natural gas due
to absence of boiler losses. However, supply costs are likely to be higher with heat and
pumping losses from the distribution reducing profit margins. It has therefore been
assumed that the income from the consumer is the same as per kWh as natural gas.

15
The deregulation and development of the spot electricity market could further
encourage CHP and DH developments. Electricity prices at any time are determined by a
market and vary considerably through the day. Introduction of spot prices is a relatively
new development that will place a crucial role in the integration of new technologies.
Data for the UK spot market is available through Elexon Ltd [28] which hosts the futures
market and balancing mechanism for the buying and selling of electricity. The purpose is
to ensure there is always sufficient supply in the system and to minimise loses.

1.7 Heat demand profiles

100

90
Heat deamnd (% maximum)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Hour of day (00:00hrs - 24:00hrs)
Winter Summer

Figure 1.4 – Typical heat demand profile for a district heating system
(source: Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK)

Many diurnal heat demand profiles are characterised by the same main features. Low
energy use by night, increasing during the morning when as timed heating systems start
to operate. This is then followed by a daytime plateau and a gradual decrease as
workplaces close for the day. The rate of the reduction in demand is tempered by
increased domestic use in the evening which eventually tails off as people go to bed.
The profile will also be affected by the category of user. If a district heat network has a
large proportion of its heat going for 24hr industrial use, the variation may not be as
great.

16
 Figure 2.5 – Heat exported to the Sheffield district heating network in 2006 [27]
Annual trends are particular to the location of the facility. In continental climates the
peak demands will usually be much higher relative to the summer conditions. In
maritime climates such as that experienced in the UK smaller differences between
summer and winter demand can be expected. Figure 1.5 gives the heat demand profile
for the Sheffield district heating system in 2006.

1.8 Heat storage

There are three main types thermal storage (TES) in use, sensible, latent and
thermochemical. The various methods are examined in detail by Dincer [29] and Ter-
Gararian [30]. The type of TES appropriate depends on the operating demands of the
system and whether the storage is for diurnal or season use. In the majority of
applications the most practical is sensible heat storage.

Sensible heat storage comes in number of forms and can use rock, brick, oils, water in
vessels or aquifers and molten salt for high temperature duties [30]. The basic equation
for the amount of energy that is can be stored is given by

Q = m . Cp . ∆T

The most common type uses water as the storage medium. This has the advantage of
having a relatively high heat capacity compared to other substances that can be used

17
for this purpose. For temperatures above 100 °C the containment for water must be
pressurised. Traditionally these vessels are made of steel and have a practical limit of
around 20bar and 500m3 of volume. Other techniques are now available such as
constructing the pressure vessel from pre-stressed concrete or prefabricated blocks.
Depending on the scale these methods can have a lower cost per unit volume and are
able to contain larger volumes and higher pressures [30]

Water in the vessel is stratified. When heat is stored, cold water is pumped out from the
base of the vessel through a heat exchanger. The resulting hot water then passes to the
top of the same vessel it was extracted from. The reverse occurs when is removed from
the TES. There are some losses involved due to a degree of mixing between the cold and
hot zones in the vessel and also pumping losses. The overall thermal efficiency can be
expected to be around 90% for system used on a diurnal basis [31].

1.9 Description of the Sheffield energy recovery facility

Information on the Sheffield energy recovery facility has been obtained through two
main sources. IPPC documentation [32] obtained through the Environment Agency and
a recently published study by Kirkman et al with the institute of Civil engineers [27]

The Sheffield energy recovery facility has been operation in its present form since 2006.
Municipal solid waste (MSW) is taken from the local community and incinerated at rate
of upto 28 tonnes/hour. A single boiler recovers heat from the flue gas to raise steam
which passes to an extraction turbine. The amount of steam taken from each extraction
can be varied within limits. Steam is used for both electricity and heat supply. All the
steam supplied for heating is used to generate electricity. When heating is not required
the steam passes through to the lower pressure extractions and converts more thermal
heat to power.

The maximum heat supplied from the incinerator boiler to the district heating system is
39MWth. The turbine can generate just over 20MWe, however, parasitic power that is
used to supply the equipment and the site facilities results in a maximum output to the
grid of 19Mwe.

18
Figure 1.6 – Schematic for Sheffield energy recovery facility
19
Steam from the last extraction passes to an air cooled condenser and is recirculated
from the condensate tank to the boilers. Steam from higher pressure extractions is also
used for preheating air to the incinerator, turbine glands and an ejector that keeps the
pressure at the condensate tank at the required vacuum.

The incinerator flue gases are filtered for fly ash and treated for NOx, SOx, dioxins and
furans. The largest consumers of the heat supplied are the universities, hospitals, the
council civil buildings and housing.

20
2. Modelling of process and thermal demand
2.1 Characterisation of waste for combustion model
Detailed composition of waste is difficult to obtain for a number of reasons. Municipal
waste contains many different components in varying amounts depending on the time
of year, the geographical location and changing trends in society. Only very general
information could be found from the documentation on the Sheffield facility. A range
for the lower heating value was given in the IPPC documentation [32] and a broad
categorisation of the type of waste could be found in some operating data. The LHV
corresponds well with comparable information obtained from literature of
approximately 9000kJ/kg [8]. The Sheffield IPPC documentation gives a heat of
combustion in a range of 7533 kJ/kg to 12000 kJ/kg with a design value of 9208 kJ/kg.
As no site specific data on MSW composition generic data is to be used. This is not
considered greatly problematic due to the variable characteristics of municipal waste.
Table 2.1 summarises the composition data from previous studies undertaken in the UK
[8] and what will be used in this study.

Composition of wet Elemental mol Hypo Mol

Constituents MSW with ash weight Stoichiometry weight
g/kg mol/kg g /mol CxHxOxNxSx g /mol
C 215.0 17.9 12.0 20 240.0
H 30.0 30.0 1.0 33.5 33.5
O 169.0 10.6 16.0 11.8 188.7
N 5.0 0.4 14.0 0.4 5.6
S 2.0 0.1 32.1 0.1 2.2
Combustibles total 421
Ash 269
Dry mass total 690
Water 310 18.0
Total 1000 470.0
Table 2.1 – Estimated composition of MSW

The other main components of MSW are the non combustibles known as the ash and
moisture content. These have a significant effect on the calorific value of the MSW
going into the incineration process. Both components have no calorific value although
contribute to the mass of the fuel. Moisture content will also reduce the applicable
heating value as the energy required to vaporise the water is not recovered in the flue
gas system.

21
For the HYSYS model the heat of combustion and the relative amount combustion
products for the combustible part of the MSW is required. One way of characterising
this is suggested by industry guidance [33] where a stoichiometric composition can be
formulated. The number of moles of each elemental constituent can be found by
dividing the mass by the relative atomic weight. For ease of reading the formula is
stated using a base of C20. This is a good form for use in HYSYS as a theoretical molecule
can be created and its combustion stoichiometry defined. A calculation to find a heat of
combustion for 1 mole of the hypothetical molecule representing the combustible part
of the MSW has been undertaken and can be found in Appendix 3.

To do this the LHV of has been converted to a UHV so that the total amount of energy
released is known. The definition of the types of heating value can be found in industry
documentation [34]. The UHV includes the latent and sensible heat released when
water vapour from both the reaction and the fuel moisture content is condensed to
from 150 to 25°C. The ash content merely contributes to the mass and not the enthalpy
and therefore can be discounted. The enthalpy can therefore be attributed solely
remaining combustible mass, this value has then been converted into a molar basis
based on the hypothetical molecule discussed earlier. Details of the calculation can be
found in Appendix 3

Heat of combustion for C20H33.5O11.8N0.4S0.1 has been calculated as 11146 kJ/kmol

2.2 Modelling of combustion process

As discussed an overall approximation of MSW is given as C20H33.5O11.8N0.4S0.1. The
combustion process has been simplified and is represented by the flowing reactions in
the HYSYS model.

C + O2
CO2
2H + ½O2
H 2O
N + O2
NO2
S + O2
SO2
Other reactions will occur in the combustion process and will have various degrees of
reversibility. The purpose of this study is not to undertake a detailed analysis of these

22
processes but to give a close enough approximation so that the main variables can be
adjusted and the effect of doing so on the energy recovery system examined.

Constituents Stoichiometry O2 Combustion products

Mol CO2 H2 O SO2 NO2
Mol Mol Mol Mol
C 20 20.00 20
H 33.5 8.37 16.744
O 11.8 -5.90
N 0.4 0.40 0.399
S 0.1 0.07 0.067
Total 20 16.744 0.067 0.399
Table 2.2 – Combustion products of MSW

The values given in table 2.2 have been entered into the reaction definition menu as a
reaction set where the amount of combustion products have been defined per mole of
hypothetical MSW molecule.

The heat of combustion in HYSYS is calculated by using the Gibbs free energies from the
elemental form. As the elements are bound in larger molecules in MSW the value
calculated by HYSYS must be adjusted to correspond with the value previously
calculated. This has been done by modifying the heat of formation for that hypothetical
molecule therefore reducing the heat of combustion to the appropriate level.

2.3 Determination for material flows into the incinerator

All material flows into the combustion process have been defined as a ratio to the MSW
hypothetical molecule. This is to facilitate changes in operating flow when simulating
part load conditions. A multiplier for each material has been calculated using a molar
basis and entered into HYSYS using the SET function.

For HYSYS to use the inbuilt physical properties database, each material has had to be
reduced to individual component flows. For example air has been broken down into
nitrogen and oxygen and the moisture content of MSW has been shown as a separate
stream. The table 2.3 gives the molar ratios of each stream relative to the hypothetical
MSW molecule.

23
 Feed material to incinerator Molar Ratio
MSW hypothetical molecule 1
Oxygen in air feed 45.0
Nitrogen in air feed 169.4
Ash 3.0
Moisture content of MSW 19.2
Table 2.3 – Molar ratios of feeds to incinerator

Calculations for material flowrates and molar ratios can be found in Appendix 3

From the mass balance in the IPPC documentation the amount of air is given in normal
cubic metres per hour at the full load. The ratio of air has been assumed to remain
constant through part loading conditions.

2.4 Defining steam flows for part loading

As described HYSYS has the facility to ratio flows. It can be seen from the mass balance
that certain flowrates of steam vary depending on the demand from district heating
system and that going to the condensing stages of the turbines. The streams that vary
between operating cases are listed in table 2.4

Name of stream Without DH With DH Ratio with

kg/h kg/h
Steam to gland condensers 243 141 Flow through turbine stage 4
MP steam to deaerator 5543 3931 0 – 3931 kg/h – Flow of
steam from boiler
3931 – 5543 kg/h – Flow of
through turbine stage 4
Condensate preheat 5624 231 Flow through turbine stage 4
Table 2.4 – Relationship between steam flows

The pre-heat is conducted on the condensate return from the stage 4 of the turbine.
This value therefore can be related directly to the flowrate of the out of this stage.

Deaeration is required mainly to liberate the feedwater from dissolved gases. The
flowrate is therefore closely related to the total steam flowrate from the boiler, but also
is related to the flow through stage 4 of the turbine. To deal with this the flow has been
partitioned with a portion related to each flow.

24
Steam to the gland condensers is required to prevent air ingress through the shaft seal.
The flowrate has been proportioned to the steam flowrate through stage 4 of the
turbine.

2.5 Modelling the incinerator

i and boiler using HYSYS

Figure 2.1
.1 – HYSYS representation of incinerator and boiler

The incinerator is simulated in HYSYS by a conversion reactor. A Gibbs reactor was not
considered suitable as it requires the Gibbs free energies for reactants in the HYSYS
database. The elemental components could be used as reactants. However, this would
not be a fair representation of MSW as these components are bound in complex
molecules. A hypothetical
etical molecule was therefore used with a calculated heat of
combustion and reaction pathways defined,
defined, as described in section 2.2. Combustion
efficiency was calculated using heat loss estimates stated on the Sankey diagram [[32].
Hot flue gases leave the top vent of the reactor and enter a heat exchanger unit
representing the boiler. Here the flue gases are cooled to 182.5 °C and steam is raised
to supply the CHP plant. The flue gases are cooled further to 135 °C by the economiser
and then are treated for SOx, furans and dioxins.

The Sankey diagram presented

present in plant documentation [32] provides information on
heat losses. These are summarised in table 2.5

25
 Cause of heat loss Rate of heat loss
kW % of total
Radiation losses 544.5 0.76
Bottom ashes 580.3 0.81
Unburnt MSW 953.4 1.33
Total energy available from MSW 71640 100
Table 2.5 – Heat losses from the incinerator and boiler

Radiation losses are to be assumed to be constant with part load conditions. Any
change in the heat loss caused by a reduction the temperature difference between
equipment surfaces and the air is considered negligible.

The unburned MSW will be accounted for in the conversion efficiency of 98.67% for the
combustion derived from the heat loss.

2.6 Modelling the SNCR NOx treatment

Heat losses from NOx treatment will be in proportion to the amount of MSW
incinerated. The NOx treatment impacts on the temperature of the flue gases. The
reaction of ammonia (from urea) is exothermic. However, this is more that negated by
the use of the water as a solvent necessary for the introduction of urea into the boiler
combustion chamber.

The NOx treatment has been added into the model as a reactor on the hot flue gas
stream from the incinerator. The reaction is between the urea and the NO2 defined as a
combustion product. The real life situation is far more complex than this due to the
multiple reaction paths that can occur in the hot flue gases. It is considered that most of
the NOx in the flue gas would be fuel NOx as the temperature in the incinerator would
be well below that which would form thermal NOx. Therefore, the quantity of NOx
leaving the incinerator model should be a good approximation.

For this study the main impact is the cooling effect when the ammonia solution is
introduced into the hot flue gas.

26
2.7 Modelling the multiple extraction turbine using HYSYS
The extraction turbine used at the Sheffield facility has been modelled using a cascade
of simple turbines as shown in diagram 3.2. Each turbine stage is represented by an
expander unit operation which calculates the power produced. A splitter function
allows the required amount of steam to be removed from the extraction. The remaining
steam passes into the next stage.

Figure 2.2 – HYSYS representation the extraction turbine

Isentropic letdown is used for each calculation to find the dryness

ness and hence the power
of the steam leaving each extraction. This though is an approximation and the steam
leaving the extraction will have a new entropy. The actual entropy can be found by
using steam tables and the calculated exit enthalpy. This then can
can be used as the new
inlet conditions for the next extraction of the turbine. The calculations in appendix 4
have used this method. In the HYSYS model this is done automatically by the software
using the built-in ASME steam tables.

2.8 Defining turbine characteristics

chara
HYSYS has the facility to enter characteristic curves for the turbines that relate flowrate,
pressure drop and efficiencies.

The single turbine at the Sheffield facility has 4 extractions. No detailed information
from the turbine manufacturers could be obtained to show part load performance.
performance The
heat and mass balance
balances provided in IPPC documentation [32] give 2 cases, with full
district heating and without district heating. By entering the steam conditions at each

27
extraction, the isentropic efficiency and the power could be calculated for each. The
isentropic efficiency calculated by HYSYS compared well to the manual calculations that
can be found in Appendix 4.

It is the intention of the study to examine part load performance of the turbine with
differing steam flowrates from the boiler. Although documentation describes possible
variation in heat load from the incinerator, the heat and mass balances available give
operating conditions for one steam flowrate only to the turbine.

The aforementioned operating cases described in the heat and mass balances provide
operating points that can be used as a basis for estimating the efficiencies at different
flowrates. For stages 1 and 2 only one operating point is known as the flowrates
through these stages do not change between the two cases. The efficiency of the
turbine under the stated conditions can be calculated to give one point for an efficiency
curve. For stages 3 and 4, there are two steam flowates for each, this gives two points
for each extraction and efficiency curve to be drawn for each. Tables 2.6 and 2.7
summarise the characteristics that could be derived for each turbine extraction from
the heat and mass balances using the HYSYS turbine model and information given in the
heat and mass balances.

Exit conditions Adiabatic

Extraction Mass flowrate Pressure Temperature Dryness efficiency
kg/h bar °C % %
1 85740 8.355 205.2 1 87.7
2 81419 4 143.6 0.991 90.9
3 75876 0.5726 84.74 0.909 86.9
4 70419 0.08 41.5 0.859 77.5
Table 2.6 – Turbine efficiencies without district heating calculated by HYSYS

Exit conditions Adiabatic

Extraction Mass flowrate Pressure Temperature Dryness efficiency
kg/h bar °C % %
1 85740 8.355 205.2 1 87.7
2 81419 4 143.6 0.991 90.9
3 15406 0.5726 51 0.93 58.7
4 15175 0.05 32.9 0.948 42.2
Table 2.7 – Turbine efficiencies with district heating calculated by HYSYS

28
2.9 Estimation of stage efficiencies using Regression Parameters.
As only one point of operation exists for the first two extractions generalised regression
parameters have had to be employed. The method creates a theoretical Willans’ line
that calculates Wint , the intercept with the Y axis and n, the gradient of the line. By
using this expression a power out of the turbine Wreg can be calculated for an given
mass flowrate Mact.

Wreg = ( n x Mact ) - Wint

On account of this method being a generic relationship, a correction factor F has been
used to reconcile the predicted power value using regression parameters and the value
obtained using the steam conditions stated in the mass balance.

F = Wreg / Wmax

This factor is then applied to regression parameter predictions for the part load
conditions. Actual enthalpy drop from the turbine can then be calculated using the
power output predicted by the mass flowrate through the turbine stage. The isentropic
efficiency can then be found by dividing by the enthalpy difference for a 100%
isentropic efficiency.

Wreg / Mact = ∆hreg

∆hreg / ∆his = ηiso

It has been assumed that the mass balance has been given at maximum flow through
the turbine hence giving a maximum capacity for each stage Mmax.

The tables below give the results from the manual calculations, full details of which can
be found in Appendix 4. It can be seen for full load the efficiency of the stages compare
well with those calculated through HYSYS shown earlier in tables 2.6 and 2.7

29
 Steam flow Power out Efficiency
t/h MW %
86 8.37 87.15
70 6.66 69.31
50 4.52 47.02
30 2.37 24.73
Table 2.8 - Willans’ line and efficiency correllation for Extraction 1

Flow Power out Efficiency

t/h MW %
81.7 2.94 90.39
70 2.48 76.16
50 1.69 51.82
30 0.89 27.47
Table 2.9 - Willans’ line and efficiency correlation for Extraction 2

There may be issues with this approximation for defining the Willans’ line for multiple
extraction turbines. Since the steam exhaust conditions will change with stage
efficiencies, the feed into the next stage will have different characteristics. As there is
only one point of reference for the stages 1 and 2 it is impossible to gauge an effect that
would be characteristic to particular turbines. It is however, expected that turbine
efficiency is more greatly related to mass throughput rather than the conditions of the
steam entering within the ranges experienced.

2.10 Model of Air condenser

A modular unit exists for an air condenser in HYSYS. Unfortunately the performance
data calculated does not give any information on power usage for the fans. This is an
important feature for a power plant that uses air cooled condensers as it is affected to a
greater extent to ambient conditions than condensers that use a cooling medium such
as water. The condenser has been modelled using a compressor unit and a heat
exchanger. It is known that the fans are controlled by a variable drive to conserve
energy. It has been assumed that the exit temperature for the air leaving the condenser
will be 30 °C. This allows for the lowest condensing temperature of the steam of 32.9 °C
at 0.05 bar.

30
2.11 Additional model assumptions
Blowdown – A value of 862 l/h is taken from IPPC documentation [32]

Deaerator and Vent losses – Vent losses from the deaerator are calculated by the model
to maintain a pressure of 3.535 bar within the vessel.

Ejector losses – It has been assumed that the latent heat from the condensing steam is
lost to the environment. The mass flowrate is relatively small.

Gland losses - It has been assumed that the latent heat from the condensing steam is
lost to the environment. The mass flowrate is relatively small.

2.12 Overall description and use of the HYSYS model

The HYSYS simulator required a modular approach for modelling pieces of equipment.
These are known as unit operations. Often a single piece of complex equipment will
consist of a number of units. For example the extraction turbine has been represented
by 4 simple turbines and 4 stream splitters.

Certain stream conditions are known from the mass and heat balances and these values
can be entered directly into the stream data. Care must be taken not to over-specify the
stream conditions as the simulator will find inconsistencies in the information.

Information on specific operating conditions has been entered into the model through
the unit operations. The main variables used to examine the behaviour of the model
are:

• The heat demand on the DH system

• The molar flowrate of MSW hypothetical molecule kgmol/h
• The ratios of the components in MSW feed to the incinerator in relation to the
molar flowrate of the MSW hypothetical molecule.

All other variables in the model are such calculated within the model through the SET
function which automatically calculates the required stream flowrate using a multiplier
and constant. As many of the flows are a ratio of the final extraction from the turbine,
iteration is necessary to calculate the all the upstream conditions and flows that

31
determine steam usage. HYSYS has this facility as a standard function called ADJUST and
in this case has been applied to relate the heat demand from the district heating to the
mass flowrate on the final extraction allowing the problem to be solved for each case.

Data was extracted from the simulator using the worksheet tool. Spreadsheets were
produced in excel and correlations and their equations found using line fit.

2.13 Defining heat demand profiles for Sheffield

Information on heat consumption from the district heating company in Sheffield has
been published and is shown in figure 1.5 found in section 1.7. It gives the trends over
the year 2006 for heat exported to the distribution network. By visually analysing the
data the flowing approximate operating conditions have been summarised in table 2.10.
Certain spurious data in from the summer has been discounted.

Period Heat demand (kW)

Min max
Winter (warm day) 12000 22000
Winter (cold day) 25000 40000
Winter (average) 30000
Summer (warm day) 4000 5500
Summer (cold day) 5000 8000
Summer (average) 7500
Table 2.10 – Estimated heat demand ranges on Sheffield energy recovery facility

The maxima for each type of day has been used as the base, with the other data points
following the profiles published by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change
that have been described earlier. Due to the relatively large variations in heat demand
during the winter three types of day have been used as examples of winter conditions.
Summer conditions have a much smaller variation, therefore, use of average conditions
is considered adequate.

Winter demand, in any case, is of greater significance in determining the system

capacity as the maximum heat demand likely to be experienced has to be catered for.
When the effect of peak load boiler has been examined, the system maximum thermal
demand has been increased in relation to the size of the peak load boiler. When
deriving the heat demand for less severe conditions, a fraction of this value must be

32
used. The following formula has been used to estimate the increased heat demand Qnew
max.

Qnew max = Qbase max + ( Qpeak boiler x ( Qbase max / Qwinter max) )

The other data points for heat demand are then calculated using this base value.

2.14 Heat storage

A simple model for heat storage has been used. It has been assumed that steam is taken
from the second extraction and directed to the heat storage facility rather than the DH
heat exchanger system. The cumulative amount of heat required during the day was
calculated giving the amount of time that the turbine can supply at full DH load. The
remainder of the time can be used to put full load on the condensing stages of the
turbines to maximise power production. The size of the storage determines the period
that the turbine can run between changes in operation. It has been assumed that the
average time period for this is 1 hour. The actual value would be dependent on
equipment manufacturer requirements.

It has been assumed that the heat storage facility has an overall efficiency of 90%. As
10% of the heat that is stored is lost, the amount of heat that must be stored is greater
than what will be eventually supplied. This is accounted for in the model through an
iterative process, where the time required for heat storage is increased and the time for
maximum power generation is decreased. The size of heat storage given has been
calculated assuming a 50°C temperature rise and using an average discharge rate for
one hour.

33
3. Results
The results have been analysed and utilised in the following steps.

• Validation of model using data from available documentation and manual

calculations.
• Sensitivity analysis to look at how variations in operating conditions affect plant
performance.
• Production and analysis of operating trends
• Application of formulated correlations to assess efficiency and income potential
with auxiliary boilers and heat storage

3.1 Validation of model

The validity of the power plant model will be examined by splitting the system into 2
distinct areas, the combustion and flue gas process, and the steam cycle. Each will be
considered individually.

A high level mass and heat balance exists on the incinerator, heat recovery and flue gas
treatment. This information has been used as a basis for the design of the model
therefore has limited use for validation. Values calculated by the HYSYS model have
been compared to manual calculations and other data sources from literature.

3.1.1 Properties of flue gas

Table 3.1 compares the manual calculations with data generated from HYSYS. It shows a
relatively close agreement between the two methods. The most likely source of the
minor differences would be the rounding of multipliers for the HYSYS model.

Real measured values for O2 content in the flue gas vent line has been found in plant
documentation obtained. This gives extreme values between 6 and 10% averaging
around 8%.

34
 Manual calculation HYSYS Model Difference
Mol % Mol % %
yCO2 8.18 8.06 -1.45
ySO2 0.03 0.03 -1.27
yN2 68.05 68.33 0.41
ywater 14.71 14.51 -1.34
yO2 8.87 8.91 0.40
yNOx 0.16 0.16 -1.38
Total 100.0 100.0
Table 3.1 – Comparison of flue gas composition calculation methods

3.1.2 Adiabatic flame temperature

Data obtained from CFD (Computational fluid dynamics) simulations was found in
company documentation [32]. For mass flowrates of 28 t/h the adiabatic flame
temperatures are quoted as between 1152°C and 1242°C. It is not known whether this
is with SNCR NOx treatment. The model fits comfortably within this range. The HYSYS
model predicts a 7°C lower temperature with NOx treatment.

A flame temperature can also be calculated using the volumetric flowrate quoted in the
mass balance and is stated in table 3.2.

Units Source
Total energy in fuel 72070 kW Manual calculation
Cp of flue gas 1.363 kJ/kg K HYSYS model
Mw of flue gas 28.25 g/mol HYSYS model
Flowrate of flue gas 132012 Nm3/h IPPC mass balance
Flue gas temperature 1156 °C Calculated from mass
balance
Flue gas temperature 1194 °C HYSYS model
Difference in flame temp 3.5 %
Table 3.2 – Comparison of adiabatic flame temperature calculation methods

There is a notable difference between the manual calculation using information in the
mass balance and the HYSYS calculation. The most like source of the difference in the
calculations is the derivation for the heat of combustion for the hypothetical MSW
molecule. As there is limited data on the precise composition of the MSW, the value for
heat of combustion can vary depending on the quantity of water and ash. This is
examined in more detail in the sensitivity analysis in section 3.2.

35
3.1.3 Steam cycle

Most of the calculations in the steam raising and power generation section rely on
correlations calculated by the mass balance. HYSYS data on turbines efficiency can be
corroborated by using manual isentropic letdown calculations as detailed in section 2.8

The flowrates correspond well between the HYSYS model and the mass balances from
the IPPC documentation [32] see tables 3.3 and 3.4. Where mass values are calculated
by the HYSYS model through transferring heat between the steam and air preheat and
economiser the flowrates match is relatively close. There are discrepancies in
temperature, most notably on the condensate return to the deaerator.

The main cause of the discrepancies is an apparent error on the mass balance found in
the IPPC documentation [32]. It gives an enthalpy 2471kJ/kg, too low for the steam at
the conditions stated. Steam tables show that the value should be around 2719kJ/kg.
This is causes lower required flowrate for the district heating (in the model), therefore
increasing the flowrates to the later stages of the turbine. The higher flowrate causes a
slightly higher exhaust pressure determined by the stage characteristics defined in the
HYSYS model. As the pressure is near vacuum on the final extract, very small changes in
pressure will noticeably affect the temperature. It is not considered a major source of
error as the heat is retained in the system and the enthalpy involved is relatively small
compared to the total heat input.

36
Stream 1 4 7 9 10 11 13 14 22 23 24
Description HP Glands Primary Cond Turbine De- DH Cond Cond Cond to Cond
Steam air pre- pre- Ext 4 aerator system return from LP econom into
Units heater heater heater dearator

Mass balance

Flowrate kg/h 86350 141 4321 231 15443 3931 62082 16015 16015 78097 78097
Pressure bar 46 8.355 0.13 0.05 4 4
Temperature °C 400 205.2 51 32.9 143.6 143.6 39.2 47.0 91.9 117.3

Moisture % dry 1 1 0.95 0.930 0.991 0 0 0 0

Model prediction

Flowrate kg/h 86330 143 4325 231 16060 3933 62127 16016 16016 78050 78050
Pressure bar 46 44 8.355 0.57 0.056 143.6 143.6 3.635 3.535 3.535 3.535
Temperature °C 400 397 240.1 84.8 35.0 400 400 34.9 43.0 91.1 119.7

Moisture % dry 1 1 1 0.949 0.930 0.992 0.992 0 0 0 0

Table 3.3 - Stream flowrates comparison for 100% boiler load with full district heating (39MWth) between model and mass balance

37
Stream Stream 1 4 7 9 10 11 13 14 22 23 24
Description Units HP Glands Primary Cond Turbine De- DH Cond Cond Cond to Cond into
Steam air pre- pre- Ext 4 aerator system return from LP econom dearator
heater heater heater

Mass balance

Flowrate kg/h 86350 243 4321 5624 70419 5543 0 76485 76485 76485 76485
Pressure bar 46 8.355 0.57 0.08 4
Temperature °C 400 205.2 41.4 143.6 41.05 80.19 80.19 110.3

Moisture % dry 1 1 1 0.859 0.991 0 0 0

Model prediction

Flowrate kg/h 86330 247 4324 5687 71060 5541 0 77200 77200 77200 77200
Pressure bar 46 44 8.355 0.57 0.08 4.0 4.0 3.535 3.535
Temperature °C 400 397 206.2 84.8 41.5 143.6 143.6 41.3 81.2 81.2 110.6

Moisture % dry 1 1 1 0.9 0.858 0.992 0.992 0 0

Table 3.4 - Stream flowrates comparison for 100% boiler load with no district heating (0 MWth) between model and mass balance

38
3.2 Model results - Sensitivity analysis
3.2.1 Combustible (dry / ash free MSW) component composition

The LHV range for MSW is stated as between 7533 kJ/kg and 12000 kJ/kg. The makeup
of the combustibles could be a source of variation in the incineration process. Not only
can the energy content change, but also flue gas composition which would affect the
adiabatic flame temperature. Table 3.5 gives some typical calorific values for
components of MSW for comparison with the overall value used in this study.

Component Calorific value Comparison to overall

( dry / ash free) MSW calorific value
kJ/kg %
Paper - mixed 18650 79
Newsprint 20000 84
Corrugated boxes 18260 77
Lawn grass 20610 87
Green logs 9840 41
Evergreen shrubs 20750 87
Wood and bark 20140 85
Leather shoes 23500 99
Rubber 29180 123
Polystyrene 38230 161
PVC 23160 98
MSW used for this study 23717 (calculated) 100

Table 3.5 – Comparison of calorific values for possible MSW components [8]

Due to the relatively large quantities dealt with at the Sheffield facility (up to 28 t/h) it
can be expected that the materials will be well mixed. It could be argued that there will
be seasonal variations with garden waste making larger contributions during the
summer period, and paper and plastics increasing during the winter. The effect again
would be limited by the fact that the combustible component makes up around 40% of
the total mass. It is considered that the physical property variation of the combustible
component is notable but will have a much smaller impact than changes moisture and
ash content.

3.2.2 Moisture and ash content of the MSW feed to incinerator

As discussed, it is expected that the main cause of variations in the calorific value of the
MSW will be caused by the variations in the moisture and ash content of the fuel. The

39
table 3.6 shows the compositions that give the upper and lower limits of LHV range for
the MSW. The values have been calculated by changing the either the ash or the
moisture content with combustible content until the required LHV is reached.

Content High moisture Low moisture High ash Low ash

LHV (kJ/kg) 7533 12000 7533 12000
Combustibles (%) 35.7 52.7 35.0 53.9
Ash (%) 26.9 26.9 34.0 15.1
Dry mass (%) 62.6 79.6 69.0 69.0
Water (%) 37.4 20.4 31.0 31.0
Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 3.6 – MSW composition used for the 4 analysed cases

Using these figures the molar ratios have been calculated for entry into the HYSYS
model using the hypothetical MSW molecule as the base. The air feed is to be kept at
the same excess, therefore the molar ratios will remain the same. All the values that are
changed in the model are given in table 3.7

Content Base High water Low water High ash Low ash
Molar flow MSW molecule 25.08 21.3 31.4 20.9 32.1
(kgmol/h) at 28 t/h
Molar flow MSW molecule 17.9 15.2 22.4 14.9 22.9
(kgmol/h) at 20 t/h
LHV (kJ/kg) 9208 7533 12000 7533 12000
Ratio for incinerator feed materials
MSW hypothetical molecule 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Oxygen in air feed 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0
Nitrogen in air feed 169.4 169.4 169.4 169.4 169.4
Ash 3.00 3.54 2.46 4.56 1.32
Moisture content of MSW 19.2 22.7 15.3 23.1 15.0
Table 3.7 - Calculated feed ratios used in the HYSYS model

The results from the analysis are in table 4.8. As would be expected the decrease in the
proportion of combustibles with an increase in either ash or moisture content results in
a lowering of heat transfer and steam generation per tonne of MSW, and hence the
heat available for district heating. Flame temperature also decreases due to increased
amount of water vapour in the flue gases relative to the combustion products.
Interestingly the boiler efficiency increases with moisture content in the fuel. As the
energy required to vaporise water has already been accounted for in the LHV and water
vapour the efficiency should not be affected. The reason for the increase is that water

40
has a much higher heat capacity at higher temperatures. Therefore, a greater fraction of
the heat is transferred above the 135 °C stack temperature when the overall heat
capacity of the flue gas is higher. A lower MSW mass flowrate has been used to prevent
equipment running out of range in the model.

Moisture / Ash Mass flow of Flame temp Steam Boiler Max DH

content wet MSW To boiler generation efficiency available
t/h °C kg/h % kWth
Average MSW 28 1194 86230 86.9 39300
Average MSW 20 1186 61020 86.1 26610
High moisture 20 1148 50450 87.0 20600
Low moisture 20 1231 78640 85.1 35820
High ash 20 1141 49150 84.8 19340
Low ash 20 1238 80850 87.5 36910
Table 3.8 – Effect of fuel composition on boiler performance and DH heat supply

3.2.3 Fluctuating ambient air temperature

Air temperature affects the process in two opposing ways. The flue gas temperature,
hence the steam generation will reduce when colder air is supplied to the incinerator
and increase with warmer air. This directly affects the efficiency of the boiler and the
amount of steam that can be used for heating or power generation. However, with
higher ambient temperatures, the volume of air and therefore the fan power required
to condense the steam leaving the final stage of the turbine increases dramatically. This
is due to exit temperature of the air leaving the condensers being limited by the
relatively low temperatures required to condense the steam at the required operating
pressure. Table 3.9 summarises the overall effects at 3 ambient air conditions assuming
a condenser air exit temperature of 30 °C. When the DH is off, the most efficient point
of operation is at the midrange temperatures before the fan power requirement rises
up its exponential curve. When full DH is on, higher temperatures benefit the overall
thermal efficiency most as the DH heat exchanger is used to condense most of the
steam rather than the air cooled condenser. Unfortunately the system is unlikely to be
able to take advantage of this operating range as DH is required less when ambient
temperatures are higher.

41
Ambient Temperature -5 10 25 °C
Steam generation 85470 86330 87000 kg/h
Fan power (assuming 75% efficiency) 161 286 1180 kWe
Net power out 19900 20251 19823 kWe
Electrical efficiency 27.79 28.28 27.68 %
Boiler efficiency 85.58 86.89 88.33 %

Overall thermal efficiency with full DH 71.13 71.59 71.76 %

Table 3.9 – System performance with ambient air conditions

3.2.4 Primary air pre-heat temperature

The Sheffield facility has a staged air supply to the incinerator, one of which has an air
pre-heater that uses steam from the first extraction from the turbine. Presently, the set-
point temperature for the air is 130 °C. It can be seen in table 3.10 that the feature
benefits the efficiency by over 1% whether supplying heat or maximising power
production. The model also indicates that the efficiency continues to increase linearly
above this temperature. The steam supply has a temperature of approximately 205 °C,
this therefore limits the maximum pre-heat temperature. In addition there may be
practical reasons where a higher temperatures and pressures may be undesirable in the
air pre-heater. This problem could be overcome by installing an additional heat
exchanger and heating the secondary air supply which should result in a similar
advantage.

Air preheat temperature 170 130 90 50 10 °C

Flue gas temperature (after losses) 1210 1194 1179 1164 1150 °C
Steam generation 87630 86330 84850 83470 82110 kg/h

Net power out 20498 20251 19987 19731 19483 kWe

Electrical efficiency 28.62 28.28 27.91 27.55 27.20 %
Boiler efficiency 86.88 86.89 86.90 86.91 86.92 %

Overall thermal efficiency with full DH 71.91 71.59 71.25 70.92 70.60 %
Table 3.10 – System performance with ambient air conditions

3.2.5 Return temperature of DH condensate

The temperature of the condensate leaving the DH heat exchangers is 103.4 °C. As the
minimum return temperatures for water circulated in DH systems in the UK is 71 °C
[35]. For this reason there may be scope for using more of the sensible heat currently

42
lost in the condensate return. The results from the model summarised in table 3.11
shows there is some potential benefit especially if any change required little capital
investment or can be achieved merely through changing operating set-points.

Condensate return temperature 103.4 90 80 °C

Net power out 12138 12277 12379 kW
Electrical efficiency 16.95 17.14 17.28 %
Overall thermal efficiency 71.40 71.60 71.74 %
Table 3.11 – System performance with changes to DH condensate return temperature

3.2.6 Pressure of steam to DH heat exchanger

Steam is supplied to both the DH system and deaerator at 4 bar. The deaerator in
addition to its main purpose acts as a boiler feed water pre-heater found in
regenerative cycles. When the pressure from the extraction is increased the benefits of
lower steam consumption in DH heating system is outweighed by the reduced power
output on the stage 2 of the turbine. This effect can be seen in the second and third
columns of table 3.12.

To reduce the pressure on the turbine outlet at extraction 2, the pressure in the
deaerator had to be lowered to accommodate the change. A significant effect is the
reduction of steam generation by the boiler as the condensate returning to the boiler
has a lower enthalpy. The power reduces with a higher outlet pressure, with later
turbine stages running at the least efficient end of their operating curve unable to
compensate. When the pressure is reduced the power output increases by over 1MW
from the base case, taking advantage of the greater expansion.

During the warmer months when little DH is required the potential power output
decreases by around 1 MW. This is caused by the decrease in the steam flowrate
through the turbine and hence the decrease in turbine efficiency. Any benefit for the
lower pressure at the second extraction is minimal as the bulk of the steam passes to
the condensing stages of the turbine.

43
Location No DH Full DH Full DH No DH Units
Deaerator 3.535 3.535 2.0 2.0 bar
Pressure (Base) (Base)
steam to DH 4 4 6 4 6 2 4 2 bar
DH Heat out 0 39 39 39 39 39 0 0 MWth

Stage 1 8338 8361 8360 7587 7587 7588 7566 7566 kWe
Stage 2 2940 2947 1384 2868 1350 5262 2866 5257 kWe
Stage 3 5819 841 908 681 755 554 5615 3481 kWe
Stage 4 3993 604 625 491 522 438 3849 3841 kWe
Fan use 286 70 79 60 68 179 275 275 kWe
Pump use 146 146 146 143 143 143 143 143 kWe
Net power
out (all 20251 12264 10779 11151 9729 13247 19071 19321 kWe
losses)
Electrical eff 28.28 17.12 15.05 15.57 13.58 18.50 26.63 26.98 %
Thermal eff 28.28 71.58 69.51 70.03 68.04 72.95 26.63 26.98 %
Table 3.12 – Effect of DH steam supply pressure and deaerator pressure

3.2.7 Excess air

The amount of excess air in an incineration process is normally high compared to the
combustion of fossil fuels. Niessen [36] suggests a value of between 20 and 80%. The
mass balance suggests the Sheffield facility is using an excess air calculated at 96.2%.
Table 3.13 summarises the results from the model when the excess air is reduced. The
operating point has been selected with a 20MW heat demand on the DH system. It
should be noted that any effect on the combustion efficiency has been neglected.

Excess air 96.2 96.2 70 50 %

Mass flow of MSW 28 20 20 20 t/h
Flue gas temperature (after losses) 1194 1186 1304 1412 °C
Steam generation 86330 61020 61560 61960 kg/h
Net heat from MSW 257824 184160 184160 184160 kWth
Net power out 20318 7319 7534 7697 kW
Electrical efficiency 28.37 14.31 14.73 15.05 %
Boiler efficiency 86.89 86.07 87.00 87.69 %

Overall thermal efficiency with full DH 56.30 53.40 53.82 54.14 %

Table 3.13 – Effect of varying excess air to the incinerator

The incinerator has been part loaded to prevent the turbine running off the end of its
curve when the higher steam flowrates are generated at the maximum capacity.

44
3.2.8 Power output

Stated generator Net electrical Power output stated in

losses [32] output on model Sankey diagram [32]
kW kW kW
No district heating 406 20289 20302
With district heating 275 12299 12060
Table 3.14 – Comparison of power output predicted by model with that stated in
documentation

Electrical output appears to be in line with information from IPPC documentation stated
in a Sankey diagram. The slightly higher output with DH is probably by the slightly higher
flowrate of steam passing through to the condensing stages of the turbine than stated
in the mass balance. See section 3.1.3 for details on this. The difference results in a
power out discrepancy of 2% for this operating case.

45
3.3 Model results - Current operating characteristics
3.3.1 Operating curves

25000

20000
Power output

15000

10000

5000

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
District heating demand (kWth)

100% load 80% load 60% load 40% load

Figure 3.1 – Operating curves for part load conditions on the incinerator

The proportion of steam directed to either the two final extractions or the DH system
can be varied. Figure 3.1 shows the operating curves where the power production has
been correlated to the load on the DH system. The 4 curves correspond to the part load
of the incinerator feed, hence the steam generation on the boiler. By looking at the two
extremes of the curves it can be seen that the relationship between part load and heat
available for district heating is approximately linear. The relationship between part load
and power generation is not linear as can be seen at the Y-axis where the interval
increases between the curves with increasing load. This is due to the increased
efficiency of the turbine stages with steam throughput.

3.3.2 Minimum price of electricity produced using auxiliary boilers

During periods of peak electricity demand, a CHP plant can shift emphasis from heat
supply to power generation while maintaining consumers heat requirements through
the use of auxiliary boilers. The Sheffield DH system has three oil fired standby boilers
for use during shutdown or failure of the incinerator system. Assuming a boiler
efficiency of 85% and fuel cost of 3.2p/kWh for fuel oil [26] a cost of producing

46
electricity has been calculated by displacing thermal energy from the incinerator by
heat from the boilers. A price using natural gas has also been provided as a comparison
with a cost of 1.8 p/kWh. Figure 3.2 gives the correlations at three different part loads
on the incinerator. It is clear the cost of power production reduces with increasing
efficiencies at higher steam turbines throughputs. In relation to the market, the amount
of production from Sheffield would not affect the sale price. This would indicate that if
the plant is to produce electricity for sale, that is far more cost effective to place full
load on the condensing stages of the turbine and supply all the district heat from the
auxiliary boilers. In current market conditions peak prices for electricity on the spot
market rarely exceeds 6p/kWh [37]. This method of producing electricity is therefore
too expensive and the Sheffield plant would make a loss. Even when using cheaper
natural gas it unlikely to be economical to increase power production during peak
electricity periods. Waste materials used as the boiler fuel is free or often has a negative
value. When the fuel has a price, the plant is an expensive method on account of the
relatively low thermal efficiency when producing electricity.

0.3 Fuel oil - 100%

steam
generation
0.25
Fuel oil - 80%
steam
Cost of power (£/kWh)

0.2 generation
Fuel oil - 60%
steam
0.15 generation
Natural gas -
0.1 100% steam
generation
Natural gas - 80%
0.05 steam
generation
0 Natural gas - 60%
steam
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
generation
Heat generated by auxiliary boilers (kW)

Figure 3.2 - Examination of cost of producing electricity using the auxiliary boilers

47
4. Optimisation
4.1 Part loading incinerator boiler
There are two methods to vary the heat available for the district heating system. Either
steam can be passed through to the condensing stages of the turbine or the load on the
incinerator can be reduced. Figure 4.1 gives the power output, required incinerator part
load and efficiency curve for any given heat demand within the DH range while
maintaining the minimum flowrate on the condensing stages of the turbine. In Figure
4.2 the full load on the incinerator is maintained, while the steam not used for DH is
passed to the condensing stage of the turbine. It can be seen that thermal efficiencies
are different depending on the method of changing the heat load to the DH system. This
effect is summarised by Figure 4.3 that compares the two methods of changing heat
input to the DH system.

14000 100
90

Part load / Theraml efficiency (%)

12000
80
10000 70
Power (kWe)

8000 60
50
6000 40
4000 30
20
2000
10
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
District heating demand (kWth)
Power (kWe) Part loading (%) Thermal efficiency (%)

Figure 4.1 - Incinerator part load, power output and thermal efficiency
for specified DH thermal demand

48
 25000 80

70
20000
60

Thermal efficiency (%)

Power (kWe)
15000 50

40
10000 30

20
5000
10

0 0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Heat available for DH system (kWth)
Power (kWe) Thermal efficiency (%)

Figure 4.2 - Power output and thermal efficiency for

100% load on incinerator

80

70

60
Thermal Efficiency (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Thermal demand on DH system (kWth)
Part load on incinerator 100% load on incinerator

Figure 4.3- Comparison of thermal efficiency for methods of varying heat

supplied to DH system

49
It is clear that part loading on the incinerator boiler is up to 10% more thermally
efficient for all of the operating range. The higher efficiency is achieved through the part
loading method due to a larger proportion of the steam produced going for DH duty
which is far more thermally efficient than producing electricity.

4.2 Use of peak load boilers

Currently the auxiliary boilers are only used as an emergency backup or during
exceptional heat demand. It is clear that due to the relatively low efficiency of the
system for producing electricity it is advantageous to sell as much energy as possible as
heat. The amount of peak thermal heat capacity could be increased by using the existing
backup oil boilers or preferably additional gas fired boilers that have cheaper fuel costs
and do not compromise the heat supply security to the customers.

Under most circumstances any facility supplying heat to a DH system must be able to
meet the absolute maximum demand that can be expected. To do this the Sheffield
facility has back up boilers that have a cumulative capacity in excess of what can be
supplied through the steam system. From the annual trend obtained, it appears that the
maximum load on the system is approximately 40 MWth. To increase the average
thermal load additional peak load capacity must be available if required. As discussed,
much greater efficiencies can be achieved with higher thermal load on the DH system.
The model clearly shows this upward trend in figure 4.4. As the conditions become
more severe the gradient of the line is steeper as the utilisation of the thermal energy
increases by a larger factor. For the coldest day the gradient appears to deviate from
this pattern. This is due to the thermal load on the DH system exceeding what can be
supplied from the turbine for longer periods of time. When the curve becomes flat this
indicates that maximum amount of steam from the turbine is used for DH.

For majority of the time the peak load boiler will not come into use, and therefore will
not incur operational costs. Figure 4.5 shows how income can be significantly increased
with a higher thermal load. The benefits are greatest for a mild winter day as the
amount of additional fuel bought to meet peak demand is lower than for more severe
days. The rate of potential income gain gradually decreases as more of the heat is
generated from the gas supply. A greater income would be generated from using gas as

50
the price of gas sold to a larger industrial user is lower than the price of heat to a
domestic consumer.

75.0
70.0
65.0
Thermal efficiency (%)

60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Size of addtional peak load boiler (MW)

Winter (severe) Winter (average)

Winter (mild) Summer (average)

Figure 4.4 – The effect of additional peak load boilers on efficiency

25000
Additional Income per day (£)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 10 20 30 40
Size of peak load boiler (MW)
Winter (severe) Winter (average) Winter (mild)

Figure 4.5 - Estimated daily additional income with increased peak load boiler for a
day in winter

51
Similarly figure 4.6 shows the increase in income generated during an average summer
day. As the summer heat demand will be a constant proportion of the maximum winter
heat demand, the potential increase in income is much lower.

2500
Addtional Income per day (£)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Size of peak load boiler (MW)

Figure 4.6 - Estimated daily income with increased peak load boiler for an average day
in summer

Increasing heat demand would reduce the income from electricity sales. Figure 4.6 looks
at effect of any future changes in the guaranteed electricity sale price on the overall
income. If the price of electricity goes up then the potential gains are reduced.

52
 Effect of electricity price on potential income with additional peak
load boiler on an average winter day
12000

10000

Additional income per day (£) 8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Size of peak load boiler (MW)
5.8 p/kWh 4.8 p/kWh 3.8 p/kWh 6.8 p/kWh

Figure 4.7 - Effect of electricity price on potential income with additional peak load
boiler on an average winter day

The gains have been annualised in figure 4.7. The trend gradually flattens out due to the
increasing expenditure on natural gas. The potential gains are significant. However, the
potential costs of for expanding the network and equipment are not included.

53
 Potential annual income increase with additional
peak load boiler capacity
3500000

Potential addtional income (£/year)

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Size of additional peak load boiler (MW)

Figure 4.8 - Potential annual income increase with additional peak load boiler capacity

4.3 Optimising performance using TES

The plant is most efficient for power production when the final extraction is at full load.
As discussed in the results the turbine increasing efficient as more of the steam is
passed to the condensing stages. The plant has maximum thermal efficiency when the
minimum flow is passing to the final extraction with maximum demand on the district
heating system as the latent heat becomes useful. For this reason it is better to run in
either of these two states, either full load on the turbine or full load on the DH system.
A heat storage facility would allow this to occur as during thermal demand, heat stored
could be released allowing full flow to pass through to the final extraction. If the
thermal demand is low, the excess heat can be stored allowing the minimum flow
through to the final extraction. Once the thermal store is at capacity, steam can then
pass through the final stage at full flow. By alternating the state of the turbine in this
manner the average efficiency can be maximised.

54
 Efficiency (%) Estimated Storage size
additional income ( 1 hr discharge )
Type of day No storage With storage £ / day m3
Severe winter day 64.5 65.1 149 558
Average winter day 55.5 56.6 377 418
Mild winter day 48.3 49.4 432 307
Average summer day 35.2 35.8 245 104
Table 4.1 – Benefits of using heat storage on current demand profiles

From the table 4.1 it can be seen the effect of heat storage is variable depending on the
heat demand mainly determined by the environmental conditions. When the plant is
operating close to either of the extreme operational states there is less potential gain in
using heat storage as changes to operating flows are not as great. When heating
demand is low, the plant is operating close to its most efficient power producing state
already. When heat demand is great there is less opportunity increase the turbine
efficiency as most of the steam is required for heating. When the plant is operating
close to the middle of its operating curve as in the case of an average and mild winters
there is a greater potential to store heat and operate the turbine its higher efficiency
state. This is demonstrated by the potential additional income that could be generated
by the increase in electricity sales. The size of the thermal storage that can cover 1 hour
average heat demand has also been estimated. As expected the size of the storage
changes in proportion to the average heat demand. The thermal storage size stated in
table 4.1 in would provide 48 minutes at the highest heat demand in all cases. This is
likely to give an acceptable time period for switches between the two operational
states.

55
4.4 Summary of Methods examined to improve plant performance
Method Action
Part load incinerator Reduce feed to incinerator
Fuel composition Decrease non amount of
combustibles in fuel
Air preheat Increase the temperature
setpoint on the primary air
heater
Condensate return Decrease the return
temperature temperature of condensate
from DH system
Pressure on 2nd Decrease pressure on
extraction extraction
Effect
Up to 10% increase in efficiency
1.5% increase in boiler efficiency
0.3% increase in both thermal and
power efficiency per 40°C
increment.
0.34% max increase in thermal
efficiency during maximum district
heating.
<0.5 as cannot be below deaerator May not be practical as plant supply lines and
pressure.
Notes
Income lost on electricity sales to the grid
Moisture content appears to increase the
efficiency of the boiler. It is unlikely that it would
be desirable to add water MSW feed. However, it
does show on a thermal basis there is little
advantage to pre-drying the MSW feed.
If this is impractical secondary air heating could be
implemented to the same effect.
Less beneficial during mild weather conditions.
valves would have been design for present
pressure drop.
56
Method Action Effect Notes

Pressure in deaerator Decrease pressure in Upto 1.3% increase in thermal and For a permanent change benefits are not clear.
deaerator to allow the 2nd power efficiency with full DH. Changes operating conditions with the seasons
extraction pressure to be Upto 1.3% decrease in efficiency could be considered.
reduced (as above) with no DH
Excess air Decrease excess air ~0.4% per 20% decrease in excess Could be easily achieved. Effect on combustion
air. process would need to be considered.
Peak load boilers Increase thermal load on DH Upto 4.5% increase in thermal Effect is not equal throughout the year. Would
system efficiency per 5MWth of auxiliary involve an increase in the use of fossil fuels.
boiler capacity. Significant increase Capital costs of expanding network must be
in potential income. considered.
Thermal energy Store heat to allow the most Between 0.6% and 1.1% increase in Capital costs of heat storage must be considered.
storage efficient operation of turbine. thermal efficiency.

57
5. Conclusions
5.1 The use of HYSYS as a modelling tool for power generation
HYSYS has been found to be a useful tool in the analysis of part load operations and the
examination of potential design changes to the plant. The model constructed has given
results that compare well to mass and heat balances produced for the original plant
design. The unit operations that simulate the turbines have been particularly useful,
allowing characteristics curves for efficiency losses to be included for part load
conditions. The facility to create hypothetical molecules has allowed combustion
characteristics for waste to be modelled with a simple conversion factor representing
the combustion efficiency. It is considered that the reliability of this method is sufficient
as precise combustion dynamics and flue gas composition is not the focus of this study.

HYSYS does not allow inefficiencies in bearings and conversion losses to be included as
separate turbine characteristics. They cannot be included in the turbine curve as they
would affect, incorrectly, the downstream conditions. These losses have to be manually
accounted for when the data is presented.

There are a number of advantages in creating a model in HYSYS above spreadsheet

calculations. The in built database will automatically calculate physical properties for
the fluids used in the model. Not only is this likely to me more accurate, it allows
changes to operating conditions to be made relatively quickly. HYSYS will alert the user
when errors in the calculation are present or when there is a conflict between certain
pieces of information entered. Therefore, the simulation should represent a possible
operation scenario if it runs. The ADJUST feature allows iterative calculations to be
carried out that would be much more complicated in a spreadsheet that may require
macros in BASIC. The graphical interface allows errors and problems in the calculation
to be located more easily.

HYSYS is also capable of incorporating equipment specifications if these can be obtained

from plant design handbook. Control valves and instruments can be included to give
more representative control mechanisms which should lead to the ability to create a
dynamic model of the system.

58
5.2 Plant operation and modification
MSW appears to be an effective fuel for CHP systems although when producing power
alone, the efficiencies are relatively poor compared to other methods of producing
electricity. This is mainly due to inherent limits on the maximum temperature that
steam can be raised to. The heat recovery system cannot usually tolerate a steam
temperature above 400 °C due to high rates of corrosion caused by aggressive nature of
flue gas from incineration. For this reason MSW incineration should always be tied to
DH systems if the carbon intensity is to remain below other more traditional fuels.

In most operating scenarios plant would be able to increase efficiency by reducing the
load on the incinerator only producing the enough steam to supply the DH system and
the minimum flow on the turbine. It has been estimated that thermal efficiency can be
increased by up to 10%. This is unlikely to an optimal operating state for financial gain.
As the MSW fuel essentially is free or has a negative value, there are few costs in
producing electricity when heat is not required for DH. If part loading was carried out
during the summer months for example, income from power sales to the grid would be
lost.

As the Sheffield facility was commissioned in 2006 is most likely designed to near
optimum engineering standards using modern software packages and a high level of
engineering practice. It can be seen in the analysis of the plant operating conditions that
changes in certain operating set-points may improve efficiencies by around 1%. It is
possible that the improvements listed in section 4.4 can be additive with increases in
efficiency on one section of the plant not adversely affecting another. If this is so, gains
greater than 2% may be possible.

The greatest improvements are realised through manipulating the ratio of heat and
power generated by the plant. It is clear that with the infrastructure already built, it is
far more thermally efficient and profitable to supply heat to consumers rather than
power to the national grid. The seasons give heat demand a certain thermal demand
profile through the year. A customer will use a lot less heat during the summer than in
the winter. Due to the necessary infrastructure having to be in place, the number of

59
customers will remain the same throughout the year. Therefore, the same
infrastructure must be able to meet the peak winter as well as summer demand.

It appears from the demand profiles obtained that the Sheffield facility meets all of its
demand from the incineration process and the auxiliary boilers are rarely used. The
analysis shows that this method of operation is far from making optimal use of the
energy available. If the number of customers can be increased by using additional
boilers during peak load, the thermal supply to the DH system can be increased
throughout the year. Thermal efficiencies will increase for all operating scenarios up
20MWth of additional peak load capacity. After this point the benefits start to diminish.
Potential income will also increase rapidly and this may justify the cost of expanding the
distribution network. It has been estimated that a potential £2million p.a. addition
income could be obtained with a maximum peak load increase of 20MWth.

Efficiency improvements made by the addition of a thermal store are less dramatic.
Even so, it does show that even under current demand profiles there is opportunity to
operate in more efficient manor and earn greater revenues through electricity sales to
the grid. The capital costs of heat storage have not been studied for this report,
However a cost of €268 /m3 (£220 m3) has been stated for the average cost in Denmark
[31]. For a 400m3 store this would be a capital outlay of around £90000. Potential
income derived from the earlier calculations could give an income of over £100000 p.a.
The existing system may already have potential storage capacity inherent in the design
that could be used. The insulated piping network may also be considered a storage
location.

It is unlikely that a plant such as Sheffield will benefit from the spot electricity market in
its current form. The guaranteed price of 5.8 p/kWh already secured up to 2013 is for
much of the time greater than the spot electricity price, therefore the periods where
extra profits could be made are relatively few. The maximum power to heat ratio is low,
meaning the plant is relatively inefficient at producing electricity. This is demonstrated
by the calculated production cost of electricity using the peak load boiler being
prohibitively high. The economics on a heat storage facility, decoupling heat and power
generation for this purpose are also likely to be poor. The comparatively high use of

60
thermal energy would require a sizable capacity to continue supply for any useful period
of time.

61
6. Future research possibilities
Characterising combustion in MSW and other non traditional fuels is a complex matter.
Many reaction paths can occur due to the variety of compounds that can be present in
the fuel. HYSYS and some other simulation software packages have the capability to
model equilibrium reactions. This may provide the opportunity to examine and optimise
the combustion process for incineration to maximise consumption and minimise
pollutants. Treatment stages could also be included in the model so that effect of design
on downstream equipment can be estimated.

One of the main limitations in producing steam through incineration is the temperature
and pressure to which it can be raised. Integration of a gas turbine into the system
should allow the possibility of superheating the steam further with the exhaust gases
before being passed through a steam turbine. This should increase the power
production and the overall thermal efficiency of the system. The cost of producing
power should be significantly lower than using additional fuel to directly supply the heat
demand, as calculated in this investigation. The greater emphasis on power production
may help prospective thermal storage and producing electricity for spot electricity
market become more economically attractive.

HYSYS has the capability to undertake dynamic modelling. If available, more details for
equipment can be specified in the model with a simplified district heating network and
TES also included. Such a model can examine how lags in the system between operating
set-points to meet varying demand determine the effectiveness of prospective
efficiency improvements.

Summer months are typified by much lower thermal demand than in the winter. This
study has highlighted the benefits of increasing the thermal demand during this period
to level out the demand profile. Such a method is use to absorption cooling that can use
heat to undertake refrigeration. The model constructed for this model could be
extended to incorporate a cooling system providing refrigerated warehousing for local
businesses. Providing cold storage in this way may prove to be a more energy efficient
method than using compression refrigeration techniques. An attachment of such a

62
facility to the Sheffield plant may provide an additional income stream during summer
months when sales of thermal are low.

63
Nomenclature

Abbreviations
CHP Combined heat and Power
DH District heating
IPPC Integrated pollution control
LHV Lower heating value
MSW Municipal solid waste
UHV Upper heating value
SNCR Selective non catalytic reduction

Units
Cp Specific heat capacity kJ/kg K
F Correction factor
h Enthalpy kJ/kg
M Mass flowrate kg/s
n Number of moles
W Power MW
V Volumetric flowrate of a gas Nm3/h
P Pressure bar
Q Heat flow KW
X Dryness fraction
T Temperature °C

Greek letters
∆ Change / difference
λ Ratio
η Efficiency %

64
References

[1] UK Department of energy and climate change. Energy market outlook 2008

[2] Combined Heat and Power Association. Building a roadmap for heat. 2050 scenarios and
heat delivery in the UK. University of Surrey and Imperial College London

[3] Nelson J., Amos J., Hutchinson D., Denman M. Prospects for City-Scale Combined in the UK

[4] Faber Maunsell Ltd. The potential and cost of district heating networks. Report for the UK
department of energy and Climate Change 2009

[5] UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

[6] UK Department for the environment, farming and rural affairs (2009)
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/environment/wastats/archive.htm

[7] Smith R. Chemical Process Design and Integration (2005)

[8] Williams P T. Waste Treatment and Disposal, Second Edition (2006)

[9] Horlock J H. Cogeneration: Combined Heat and Power Thermodynamics and Economics

[10] Fawkes S D., Jacques J K., Linnell C. and Watkins A. Practical modelling of micro combined
heat and power applications for local authority district heating schemes. Int. J. Energy Res.,
(1988), 12, pp. 611–629.

[11] Ong'iro A., Ugursal V I.,Taweel A M A., Lajeunesse G. Thermodynamic simulation and
evaluation of a steam CHP plant using aspen plus. Applied Thermal Engineering (1996), Volume
16, Number 3, pp. 263-271

[12] Savola T., Keppo I. Off-design simulation and mathematical modeling of small-scale CHP
plants at part loads. Applied Thermal Engineering Volume: 25, Issue: 8-9, (2005) pp. 1219-1232

[13] Brammer N R. and Hessami M.. Evaluation of a process simulator for modelling and analysis
of Rankine cycle steam power plants. Int. J. Exergy. vol 5, No 2 (2008) pp. 177 - 191

[14] Dincer I. and Al-Muslim H.. Thermodynamic analysis of reheat cycle steam power plants.
Int. J. of Energy Research. Vol 28, Issue 8 (2001) pp. 727 - 739

[15] Herrera I., Schuhmacher M., Jimenez L. and Castells F.. Environmental assessment
integrated with process simulation for process design (2002)
Department of Chemical Engineering, University Rivira and Virgili, Av països catalans 26, Lab
224,Tarragona, Spain

[16] Cimini S., Prisciandaro M. and Barba D.. Simulation of a waste incineration process with
flue gas cleaning using Aspen Plus. Waste Management. Vol 25, Issue 2 (2005), pp. 171 – 175

65
[17] SteamPro modelling software. http://www.thermoflow.com

[18] Sundberg G., Karlsson B. Interaction effect in optimising a municipal energy system, Energy
25 (2000) , pp. 877–891

[19] Zhao H., Holst J., Arvastson L. Optimal operation of Coproduction with storage. Energy,
Volume 23, Number 10, (1998), pp. 859-866

[20] Rolfsman B., Combined heat-and-power plants and district heating in a deregulated
electricity market, Appl Energy 78 (2004), pp. 37–52.

[21] Spirax Sarco steam tables. http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources/steam-tables.asp

[22] Casisi M., Pinamonti P. , Reini M. Optimal lay-out and operation of combined heat & power
(CHP) distributed generation systems. Energy Volume 34, Issue 12, December 2009, pp. 2175-
2183

[23] Lund H., Moller B., Mathiesen B V. and Dyrelund A. The role of district heating in renewable
energy systems. Energy. Volume 35, Issue 3 (2010). pp. 1381 – 1390

[24] EnergyPlan. http://www.energy.plan.aau.dk

[25] Project DESIRE. http://www.project-desire.org/

[26] UK Department of Energy and Climate Change

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/prices/prices.aspx

[27] Kirkman R., Duval D. and Stephens D S. Sheffield energy recovery facility and district energy
network. Energy. Volume 161, Issue EN2 (2010). pp. 69 – 78

[28] Elexon Ltd. http://www.bmreports.com/bwx_home.htm

[29] Dincer I. Thermal energy storage systems as a key technology in energy conservation. Int. J.
Energy Res., (2002), 26, pp. 567–588

[30] Ter-Gazarian A., Energy storage for power systems (1994)

[31] Streckienė G., Martinaitis V., Andersen A N. and Katz J. Feasibility of CHP-plants with
thermal stores in the German spot market. Applied Energy Volume 86, Issue:11 (2009) pp. 2308-
2316

[32] IPPC application for the Sheffield Energy recovery facility. Obtained through the
Environment Agency. Leeds office LS11 8PG.

[33] C-Tech Innovation Ltd - Thermal methods of municipal waste treatment (2003)

[34] Ulf Bossel - Well-to-Wheel Studies, Heating Values, and the Energy Conservation Principle.
European fuel cell forum (2003). www.efcf.com

66
[35] UK Department of the Environment transport and the Regions. Guide to community
heating and CHP. Good Practice Guide 234 (1998)

[36] Niessen W R. Combustion and Incineration Processes (1978)

[37] Elexon Ltd. www.bmreports.com/bwx_home.htm

67
Appendices – Contents

1 HYSYS process flow diagram

2 Flue gas composition validation calculation

3 Incinerator flows calculation

4 Turbine part load performance calculation

5 Turbine performance curves

6 Diurnal heat demand profile

68
Appendix 1 – HYSYS flow diagram

69
Appendix 2 – Flue gas composition validation calculation
P Pressure of combustion air 1 bar
Psat Partial pressure of water 18 deg C 0.02 bar
H Relative humidity of air 0%
%water Water in Fuel 31 %
Ywater Mole fraction of water in combustion air 0
Pwater Partial pressure of water component in combustion air

Pwater = ( H / 100 ) x Psat = 0 bar

Ywater = Pwater / P = 0 bar

M% Normalising
C 31.2 31.2
H2 4.3 4.3
S 0.29 0.3
O2 24.5 24.5
N2 0.72 0.7
Ash 39.0 39.0
total 100 100

Component mass in fuel per 1000g (including water content)

M = ( %dry wt / 100 ) x ( (100 - %water) / 100 ) x 1000

Mols of oxygen required to fully combust fuel component

nO2 / mol fuel

C + O2 → CO2 1
H2 + 1/2O2 → H2O 0.5
S + O2 → SO2 1

nO2 Number of mols of O2 required per 1000g fuel

nC02 Number of mols of CO2 as combustion products per 1000g fuel
nSO2 Number of mols of SO2 as combustion products per 1000g fuel
nN2 Number of mols of N2 as combustion products per 1000g fuel

70
Appendix 2 – Continued

Fuel and O2 Stoichiometric combustion products

Dry wt Mol wt M n nO2 nC02 nSO2 nNO2 nwater
% (g/mol) (g) (mol) (mol)
C 31.2 12 215.0 17.92 17.92 17.92
H2 4.3 2 30.0 15.00 7.50 15.00
S 0.3 32 2.0 0.06 0.06 0.063
O2 24.5 32 169.0 5.28 -5.28
N 0.7 14 5.0 0.36 0.36
Water 18 310.0 17.22 17.22
Ash 39.0 269.0

Totals 100 1000 55.84 20.20 17.92 0.063 0.357 32.22

Additional N2 in flue gas if fuel is burned in air

Assuming air is 21% O2 and 79% N2

nN2air N2 in flue gas from air

= 20.20 x (79/21)
= 76.0 mol / 1000g of fuel combusted

nwaterair Water from combustion air

nwaterair = ( nN2air + nO2 ) x ( ywater / ( 1 - ywater ) )

nwaterair = 0.00 mol / 1000g of wet fuel

nair Stoichiometric moist combustion air

nair = nO2 + nN2air + nwaterair

nair = 20.20 + 76.0 + 0.00
= 96.18 mol / 1000g wet fuel

nflue Stoichiometric flue gas

nNO2 + nwater +
nflue = nC02 + nSO2 + nN2air + nwaterair
nflue = 17.92 + 0.42 + 76.340 + 32.22
nflue = 126.9 mol / 1000g wet fuel

71
Appendix 2 – Continued

Flue gas compositions with excess air requirement

Xsair 96.2 %

λ = actual air / stoichiometric air

λ = 1.962

nO2x = (λ − 1) x 20.20 39.63

= 19.43

nN2x = (λ − 1) x 76.0 + 76.0

= 149.1

Ratio N2 / O2 3.7619

nwaterx = (λ − 1) x 0.00 + 32.22 + 0.00

= 32.2
nNO2 +
nfluex = nO2x + nN2x + nwaterx + nC02 + nS02
19.4 + 149.1 + 32.2 + 17.9 + 0.420
219.1

Flue gas composition Flue gas comp with XS air Mass flow
XS air = 0 XS air = 96.2 g/kg fuel
yCO2 0.141 0.0818 788.3
ySO2 0.000 0.0003 4.0
yN2 0.602 0.6805 596.3
ywater 0.254 0.1471 580.0
yO2 0.0887 621.8
yNOx 0.003 0.0016 16.4

Total 1.000 1.0000 2607

72
Appendix 3 – Calculation of incinerator flows
Constituents Composition Mol weight Stoichiometry Hypo MW
g/kg MSW mol/kg MSW g /mol CxHxOxNxSx g /mol
C 215.0 17.9 12.0 20 240.0
H 30.0 30.0 1.0 33.5 33.5
O 169.0 10.6 16.0 11.8 188.7
N 5.0 0.4 14.0 0.4 5.6
S 2.0 0.1 32.1 0.1 2.2

Combustibles 421
Ash 269
Dry mass 690
Water 310 18.0
Total 1000 470.0

MMSW Mass flow of MSW 28 t/h

mcom Mass of combustibles per kg of MSW 0.421 kg/kg MSW

mw Molecular weight of hypo molecule of MSW 0.470 kg / mol

Mols of combustibles per kg of MSW 0.90 mol com
per kg MSW
Mcom Molar flowrate of combustibles per hour
MMSW x mcom / mw 25.08 kmol / h

LHVmsw Lower heating value 9208 kJ/kg

Energy released when water vapour at 150 degC is condensed to water at 25 degC

hf1 Latent heat of water at 25 degC at 1 bar 104.8 kJ/kg

hg1 Latent heat at 150 degC at 1 bar 2611 kJ/kg

hmoisture Energy released cool from vapour to water

hmoisture = mmoisture x ( hg1 - h = 777 kJ/kg MSW

UHV msw Upper heating value of MSW

UHV msw = LHV + hmoisture = 9985 kJ/kg

H1 Heat from 1 kg of dry ash free combustibles

H1 = 1 / Mcom x UHV msw = 23717 kJ/kg

73
Appendix 3 – Continued

N Number of moles per dry ash free kg

= 1 / Mw = 2.13 mol/kg MSW

Hcom Heat of combustion for 1 mole

= H1 / N = 11146 kJ/kmol

Primary combustion air 68940 Nm3/h

Secondary combustion air 51511 Nm3/h
Vair Total air flow to burner 120451 Nm3/h

1 kmol gas occupies at 273 K (normal temperature and pressure) 22.40 m3

Air molar flowrate

Qtot = Vair / 22.4 = 5377 kmol/h

Assuming air is 0.21 O2 and 0.79 N2

Qoxygen 1129 mol/h

Qnitrogen 4248 mol/h

XS Air
1 mole MSW requires 22.945 mol O2
Flowrate of O2 required 575.53 mol

XS air 1.96 96.2 %

70% 978 mol 39.01
50% 863 mol 34.42
Ash flowrate 7532 kg/h

Mash Total ash flowrate 7532 kg/h

Assumed molecular weight 100 kg / kmol

Qash Molar flowrate of ash

Qash = Mash / 100 = 75.32 kmol / h

MSW moisture content

mmoisture Water content of MSW 0.310 kg / kg MSW

Mmoisture Mass flowrate of water
Mmoisture = mmoisture x MMSW = 8680 kg / h

74
Appendix 3 – Continued

Qmoisture Molar flowrate of water

Qmoisture = Mmoisture / 18 = 482

Molar ratios of incinerator feed materials in relation to the MSW hypothetical molecule

Urea to NOx treatment

Moles of Nox to be treated 0.3985 mole per mole MSW

Reaction stoichiometry 1 moles of Urea required for 3 moles of NO2

Mole of urea required 0.262 mole/kg per mol of MSW

6.574 kgmol/h

Mw urea 60.06 g/mol

394.8 kg/h

Feed material to incinerator Molar Ratio

MSW hypothetical molecule 1.000
Oxygen in air feed 45.019
Nitrogen in air feed 169.357
Ash 3.003
Moisture content of MSW 19.225

75
Appendix 4 – Calculation to estimate part load turbine characteristics
Stage 1 of turbine

Extraction 1 IN OUT
Temperature 397 205.2 degC
Pressure 44 8.355 bar
Dryness 1 1 fraction
Enthalpy 3199 2849 kJ/kg
Enthalpy (sat) hg 2771 kJ/kg
hfg 2042 kJ/kg
hf 729 kJ/kg
Entropy Sg 6.706 kJ/kg K
Sfg 4.584 kJ/kg K
Sf 2.064 kJ/kg K
Values taken from Spirax sarco steam tables [21]

Method taken from Smith [7]

X dryness with 100% isentropic letdown 1.013
his Enthalpy with 100% isenthalpic letdown 2797 kJ/kg

Mmax Maximum flow through turbine section 86.0 t/h

Mact Actual flow part load flow through turbine section 86.0 t/h
Tsatin Saturated vapour pressure into turbine 256.1 degC
Tsatout Saturated vapour pressure out of extraction 172.3 degC
Dtsat Difference in saturated vapour temperature 83.9 degC
L 0.1
∆his 100% isenthalpic enthalpy change 402 kJ/kg
his 0.112 MWh / t

A Regression parameter 0.355 MW

B Regression parameter 1.200

n Gradient of Willans' line

n = ( L + 1 ) / B x ( ∆his - A / mmax ) = 0.0987

Wint Intersection of Willans line with y axis

Wint = L / B x ( ∆his x mmax - A ) = 0.772 MW

Wreg Predicted power using regression parameters 7.72 MW

Wreg Predicted part load power using regression parameters 7.71
Wmax Power out of turbine = 8.37 MW

F adjustment factor
F = Wreg / Wmax = 0.922

Wpl Work out part load 8.37

Enthalpy drop across turbine section 350.7 kJ/kg

Enthalpy of steam leaving extraction 2848 kJ/kg
Enthalpy drop across turbine section 100% efficiency 402 kJ/kg
Isentropic efficiency 87.15 %

76
Appendix 4 – Continued

Stage 2 of turbine

Extraction 2 IN OUT
Temperature 205.2 143.6 degC
Pressure 8.355 4 bar
Dryness 1 0.991 fraction
Enthalpy 2849 2719 kJ/kg
Enthalpy (sat) hg kJ/kg
hfg 2134 kJ/kg
hf 605 kJ/kg
Entropy Sg 6.817 kJ/kg K
Sfg 5.119 kJ/kg K
Sf 1.777 kJ/kg K
Values taken from Spirax sarco steam tables [21]

Method taken from Smith [7]

X dryness with 100% isentropic letdown 0.985
his Enthalpy with 100% isenthalpic letdown 2706 kJ/kg

Mmax Maximum flow through turbine section 81.69 t/h

Mact Actual flow part load flow through turbine section 81.7 t/h
Tsatin Saturated vapour pressure into turbine 172.3 degC
Tsatout Saturated vapour pressure out of extraction 143.6 degC
Dtsat Difference in saturated vapour temperature 28.6 degC
L 0.1
∆his 100% isenthalpic enthalpy change 143 kJ/kg
his 0.040 MWh / t

A Regression parameter 0.121 MW

B Regression parameter 1.170

n Gradient of Willans' line

n = ( L + 1 ) / B x ( ∆his - A / mmax ) = 0.0361

Wint Intersection of Willans line with y axis

Wint = L / B x ( ∆his x mmax - A ) = 0.268 MW

Wreg Predicted power using regression parameters 2.68 MW

Wreg Predicted part load power using regression parameters 2.68 MW
Wmax Power out of turbine = 2.94 MW

F adjustment factor
F = Wreg / Wmax = 0.910

Wpl Work out part load 2.94 MW

Enthalpy drop across turbine section 129.7 kJ/kg

Enthalpy drop across turbine section 100% efficiency 143 kJ/kg
Isentropic efficiency 90.39 %

77
Appendix 5 – Turbine performance curves
Density IN Pressure drop
Stage
kg/m3 Head ( m )
1 15.17 41061
2 3.9593 14616
3 2.1825 32381 70419
4 0.38425 9.51E-02 32634 26956

Mass flow to volumetric flow Exit pressure Head loss Efficiency

kg/h act m3 / h bar m %
Stage 4
70419 183262 0.08 26956 42.2
15443 162344 0.05 13538 77.5
Stage 3
76043 34843 0.5726 32381 86.9
15674 7182 0.1314 53031 58.7
Stage 2
81687 20632 4 14641 90.39
30000 7577 4 14641 27.47
Stage 1
86008 5670 8.355 41061 87.15
30000 1978 8.355 41061 24.73

Calculations for density and head loss conducted using from HYSYS

78
Appendix 6 – Diurnal heat demand profiles

Estimated heat demand for type of day

Time Summer (ave) Winter (mild) Winter (min) Winter (ave) Winter (severe)
(hour) MWth MWth MWth MWth MWth
00:00 5.7 12.2 12.2 16.7 22.2
01:00 5.7 12.2 12.2 16.7 22.2
02:00 5.7 12.2 12.2 16.7 22.2
03:00 5.7 12.2 12.2 16.7 22.2
04:00 5.7 12.2 12.2 16.7 22.2
05:00 5.7 13.0 13.0 17.7 23.6
06:00 6.0 16.8 16.8 22.9 30.6
07:00 6.8 21.1 21.1 28.8 38.3
08:00 7.5 21.8 21.8 29.8 39.7
09:00 7.4 22.0 22.0 30.0 40.0
10:00 7.1 21.7 21.7 29.6 39.4
11:00 6.8 21.4 21.4 29.2 38.9
12:00 6.6 21.4 21.4 29.2 38.9
13:00 6.4 21.5 21.5 29.4 39.2
14:00 6.2 21.5 21.5 29.3 39.1
15:00 6.1 21.4 21.4 29.2 39.0
16:00 6.2 21.4 21.4 29.2 38.9
17:00 6.1 21.1 21.1 28.8 38.3
18:00 6.0 20.2 20.2 27.5 36.7
19:00 6.0 19.9 19.9 27.1 36.1
20:00 5.9 19.6 19.6 26.7 35.6
21:00 5.9 15.7 15.7 21.5 28.6
22:00 5.9 14.8 14.8 20.2 26.9
23:00 2.9 12.2 12.2 16.7 22.2

79