Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Geographic evaluation of trigeneration systems in the tertiary sector. Effect of climatic and electricity supply conditions
Monica Carvalho, Luis M. Serra*, Miguel A. Lozano
Department of Mechanical Engineering Group of Thermal Engineering and Energy Systems (GITSE), Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 15 September 2009 Received in revised form 19 February 2010 Accepted 22 February 2010 Available online 31 March 2010 Keywords: Trigeneration Mixed integer linear programming (MILP) Optimization Environmental optimization

a b s t r a c t
The development of trigeneration systems is especially important in the buildings sector, where the thermal loads are imposed by the needs of heating, domestic hot water, and cooling. A strong seasonal character is indicated, since the demands depend totally on local climatic conditions and vary considerably throughout the year. Geographic locations were chosen so as to represent the climatic variety in Spain: Canary Islands, Mediterranean Coast, Atlantic Coast, and different locations in the interior of the Iberian Peninsula. The solution of a mixed integer linear programming model (MILP) that incorporated local economic/environmental conditions determined the optimal conguration of the different energy supply plants as well as the optimal operation modes throughout an entire representative year. From an economic point of view, the optimal conguration for all localities included cogeneration modules. From an environmental point of view, the optimal solution was strongly dependent on the origin of the electricity supplied by the grid. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Trigeneration is the simultaneous production of a threefold energy vector (electricity, heating, and cooling) from the same source of energy (natural gas, for example). Trigeneration systems allow greater operational exibility at sites with a variable demand for energy in the form of heating and cooling. At present, the development of trigeneration systems is especially important in the buildings sector, where thermal loads are imposed by the needs of heating, domestic hot water, and cooling. A strong seasonal character is indicated, since the demands depend totally on local climatic conditions and vary considerably throughout the year. This is particularly relevant in buildings located in Southern Europe and Mediterranean countries where the need for heating is restricted to a few winter months. In summer, the absorption chillers make use of the cogenerated heat to produce chilled water, avoiding waste heat discharge. It is well known that the tertiary sector (considered by Eurostat, the Ofcial European Union Statistical Information Service, as the Final Energy Consumption Sector e Households and Services) is a major energy consumer, especially in the Mediterranean area,

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 34 976 761883; fax: 34 976 762616. E-mail addresses: carvalho@unizar.es (M. Carvalho), serra@unizar.es (L.M. Serra), mlozano@unizar.es (M.A. Lozano). 0360-5442/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2010.02.036

where a substantial cooling load exists during the summer period, and consequently the sector can benet from the use of trigeneration [1]. Advantages of trigeneration applications in tertiary buildings were clearly demonstrated with important technical, economic, and environmental impacts, contributing to the competitiveness, environmental protection, and security of supply [2e4]. In 1993 Council Directive 93/76/EEC [5] (regarding the limitation of CO2 emissions through the improvement of energy efciency in buildings) recognized explicitly the importance of buildings in the emission of CO2. According to Directive COM 2002/91/EC [6] (on the energy performance of buildings), the tertiary sector is responsible for more than 40% of the nal energy consumption in the European Community. This directive imposed that for new buildings with a total usable space area over 1000 m2, the technical, environmental, and economic feasibility of alternative energy systems, such as cogeneration, must be considered and taken into account before construction starts. As mitigation in the tertiary sector includes measures aimed at electricity savings, it is useful to compare the mitigation potential with carbon dioxide emissions, including those through the use of electricity. When including the emissions from electricity use, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from the buildings sector were 8.6 Gt/yr, or almost a quarter of the global total carbon dioxide emissions [7]. By transforming the built environment into a more energy-efcient environment, the tertiary sector also can play a major role in reducing the threat of climate change.

1932

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

Climate change represents one of the greatest environmental, social, and economic threats facing the planet. For different sectors of human activities, a number of key technologies and practices are currently commercially available that could contribute to climate change mitigation. The need to address sustainability in the built environment is being accelerated by external pressures such as environmental and resource concerns, rising energy prices, indoor environmental quality, global warming, and energy security. While economies transition from carbon-based to other forms of more sustainable energy, engineers will be challenged to meet an everincreasing tide of regulation and demand [8]. Less intensive technologies (when compared to coal or oil, for example) that generate electricity from renewable or less polluting energies, such as natural gas, increase their weight in the technological mix of the electricity sector in Spain, and both government and electricity sector predict that its production quota will increase in the next few years. Climate change mitigation strategies include the correct selection of available primary energy as well as the improvement of the efciency of the technologies employed in heating and cooling: co- and tri-generation technologies are mentioned in the Climate Change Mitigation Report as options to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in buildings [7]. As environmental awareness increases, industries and businesses are assessing how their activities affect the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency of USA (EPA) [9], the environmental impacts of products and processes have become a key issue, analyzed using pollution prevention strategies and environmental management systems to improve environmental performance. One such tool is Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). LCA enables the estimation of the cumulative environmental impacts resulting from all stages in the product life cycle, often including impacts not considered in more traditional analyses (e.g., raw material extraction, material transportation, ultimate product disposal, etc.). By including the impacts throughout the product life cycle, LCA provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects of the product or process and a more accurate picture of the true environmental trade-offs in product and process selection [10]. A hospital of medium size was selected to reect the demands of heat (Sanitary Hot Water (SHW), and heating), electricity, and cooling. As thermal loads (heating and cooling) are highly inuenced by climate, an analysis was carried out to verify the effects of geography and origin of electricity on the optimal design of an energy supply plant, from economic and environmental points of view. The geographic locations were chosen so as to represent the climatic variety in Spain (Fig.1): Santa Cruz de Tenerife (Canary Islands), Almera (southern Mediterranean coast), Valencia (eastern Mediterranean coast), Lugo (northwestern Spain), and Huesca, Zaragoza, and Teruel (northeastern Spain, from north to south, respectively). The following climatic data were obtained from the State Meteorological Agency [11]. Tenerife, a Spanish island, is the largest of the seven Canary Islands in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa. The island, being on a latitude of the Sahara Desert, presents warm, all year round climate with an average of 19.0  C in winter and 24.0  C in summer, with annual average precipitation of 214 mm and sunshine all year round. Almera is the capital of the province of Almera, Spain. It is located in southeastern Spain on the Mediterranean Sea. Almera is the driest region in Europe (annual average precipitation of 196 mm) as well as one of the warmest. It presents an average annual temperature of 13.8  C in winter and 24.7  C in summer, with 330 days of sun per year on average. Valencia is the capital of the autonomous community of Valencia and presents a very changeable Mediterranean climate, with hot dry summers, mild humid winters, and stormy autumns and springs, with an annual average temperature of 13.0  C in winter and 24.0  C in summer, and annual average precipitation of 454 mm.

Fig. 1. Chosen locations in Spain.

Zaragoza is the capital city of the autonomous community of Aragn. Zaragoza has a Mediterranean continental desert climate as it is surrounded by mountains, with an annual average temperature of 8.0  C in winter and 22.7  C in summer, and annual average precipitation of 318 mm. Huesca is located in Aragn, and capital of the Spanish province of the same name. Huesca presents an annual average temperature of 6.6  C in winter and 21.5  C in summer, with an annual precipitation of 535 mm. The climatic characteristics of the zone were formed under the inuence of the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, corresponding to a dry Mediterranean climate, with cold winters. Teruel is a city in Aragn, the capital of Teruel Province, with a remote and mountainous location (915 m above sea level), and an annual average temperature of 5.2  C in winter and 19.6  C in summer, with an annual precipitation of 373 mm. In summer the temperatures are mild, although with great thermal oscillation, and in winter, cold enough to support a xed period of snow cover each year. Lugo is a city in northwestern Spain, in the autonomous community of Galicia. It is the capital of the province of Lugo, presenting an annual average temperature of 7.1  C in winter and 16.7  C in summer, and annual precipitation of 1084 mm. The climate of Lugo is Oceanic, in general mild and humid (due to the Atlantic inuence), but highly variable throughout the year. Temperature and precipitation data for all geographical locations considered are resumed in Table 1. This paper accomplishes the synthesis of trigeneration systems to be installed in hospitals throughout Spain from an environmental viewpoint. Considered were the global environmental impact and the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere during the complete life cycle of the system. The global environmental impact was evaluated by applying LCA techniques (utilizing the Eco-indicator 99 method [12]). The objective function was changed to optimize the annual total cost (V/yr) and verify the changes implied. Many feasible congurations with different operation modes were involved in an analysis, resulting in a complex and difcult issue to solve. 2. Trigeneration system and economic scenario The trigeneration energy supply system analyzed in this paper has the following features: i) it produces electricity, cooling, and heat; ii) it covers precisely the demand of heat (heating and SHW) and cooling of the energy consumption system; iii) the surplus electricity produced,

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939 Table 1 Annual average precipitation and temperatures for the geographical locations considered. Sta. Cruz Tenerife Precipitation (mm) Temperature in summer ( C) Temperature in winter ( C) 214 24.0 19.0 Almera 196 24.7 13.8 Valencia 454 24.0 13.0 Zaragoza 318 22.7 8.0 Huesca 535 21.5 6.6 Teruel 373 19.6 5.2

1933

Lugo 1 084 16.7 7.1

which is not self-consumed internally in the energy supply system, can be sold to the electric grid; iv) it fullls all legal requirements to install and operate a cogeneration plant in Spain. Fig. 2 shows the superstructure of the trigeneration energy supply system. This reducible structure contains all feasible congurations (structures) for the energy supply system. The objective is to nd the optimum feasible conguration by applying mathematical optimization techniques. The superstructure of the trigeneration system counts on the possibility of installing technologies such as: TGVA (gas turbine heat recovery boiler, producing vapor and hot water), CGVA (steam boiler), MGWH (gas engine hot water heat recovery system), ICVA (vaporehot water heat exchanger), CGWH (hot water boiler), ICWH (hot waterecooling water heat exchanger), FAVA (double effect absorption chiller, driven by steam), FAWH (single effect absorption chiller, driven by hot water), FMWR (mechanical chiller, driven by electricity and cooled by water), and ICWR (cooling tower, to evacuate heat from the cooling water). The available utilities are CG (natural gas), VA (high temperature steam, 180  C), WH (hot water, 90  C), WR (cooling water, t0 5  C), AA (ambient air, t0), WC (cold water, 5  C), and EE (electricity). 2.1. Energy demand The annual demand was expressed considering 24 representative days throughout the year (two representative days for each month of the year: one working day and one holiday/weekend day) divided into 24 periods of 1 h. This means that the demand of the energy consumption system was characterized by 576 periods. Representative energy demand patterns for each representative day were calculated according to the procedure

described by Snchez [13], which estimated monthly, daily, and hourly proles of the different energy demands based on the size of the hospital and its geographical location in Spain. Climatic data for each location were obtained from the State Meteorological Agency [11]. Table 2 shows the annual demands for the different hospital locations. 2.2. Equipment Table 3 presents the selected equipment and technical production coefcients for the superstructure. The rows indicate the potentially installable technologies and the columns indicate the utilities. The production coefcient with a highlighted 1 shows the ow that denes the capacity of the equipment. Positive coefcients indicate that the utility is produced, and a negative coefcient indicates the consumption of such utility. The equipments considered in the optimization were selected among commercially available pieces of equipment. Technical and cost data were obtained from equipment catalogs and from consultation with manufacturers. CIi is the investment cost of the selected equipment of technology i, obtained from the catalog price and multiplied by a simple module factor which took into account transportation, installation, connection, insulation, etc. The total plant cost was obtained by adding indirect costs, including engineering and supervision expenses, legal expenses, contractor's fees and contingencies, assumed to be equal to 15% of the equipment investment costs (complete analysis in Lozano et al. [14]). The capital recovery factor, fcr, multiplied by the total plant cost gives the cost of servicing the required capital [15]. Assuming that the interest rate iyr and the equipment lifetime nyr are the same for all types of equipment, the capital recovery factor is given by:

Fig. 2. Superstructure of the energy supply system.

1934

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

Table 2 Heat, cooling, and electricity demands for the hospital locations, in MWh/yr. Sta. Cruz Almera Valencia Zaragoza Huesca Teruel Tenerife Heat 3511 Cooling 2500 Electricity 3250 5189 2170 3250
nyr

Lugo

5675 2077 3250

8059 1265 3250

9431 843 3250

10,646 10,189 400 0 3250 3250

Subgroup 1.1 (cogeneration installations using natural gas) with a 1000e10,000 kW capacity was utilized to obtain Ces 0.077 V/kWh as the price for sold electricity. The Equivalent Electrical Efciency (EEE) of the plant must be at least equal to that xed in reference [18], which was 59% for gas turbines and 55% for gas engines. EEE is calculated on an annual basis with the formula

fcr

iyr$1 iyr 1 iyrn 1

EEE (1)

Ec
Qc Fc 0 :9

(3)

Considering the lifetime of the plant to be 15 years with an interest rate of 0.10 yr1 (reasonable for the actual economic circumstances in Spain), an annual capital recovery factor of 0.13 yr1 was obtained. Annual maintenance and operating costs, different from energy costs, were considered as equal to 7% of the total plant cost (fmo 0.07 yr1). The factor fam took into account both maintenance and capital recovery factors:

where Ec is the generated electricity, Fc is the consumption of primary energy measured by the fuel's Lower Heating Value (LHV), and Qc is the cogenerated useful heat.

3. Environmental evaluation Two environmental criteria were chosen to carry out the optimization, the EI-99 Single Score (an environmental indicator that encompasses several impact categories and therefore gives a more global environmental perspective), and the CO2 emissions. Substantial reductions in CO2 emissions from energy use in buildings can be achieved using energy-efcient technologies that already exist, such as trigeneration, where signicant savings in primary energy are possible. Design strategies for energy-efcient buildings should include the selection of systems that make the most use of energy sources and also operate optimally. Also CO2 emissions were selected to quantify the environmental loads because global heating and the associated climate change are one of the main medium- and long-term identied threats, with great consequences on a global scale [7]. SimaPro [19], a specialized LCA tool, was used to calculate the impact associated with the production and nal disposal of each piece of equipment portrayed in the superstructure, as it includes several inventory databases with thousands of processes, plus the most important impact assessment methods. SimaPro was also utilized to calculate the impact associated with the operation of the system (consumption of natural gas and purchase/sale of electricity). A framework for LCA has been standardized by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in the ISO 14040 series [20, 21]. It consists of the following elements: (i) Goal and scope denition which denes the goal and intended use of the LCA, and scopes the assessment concerning system boundaries, function and ow, required data quality, technology and assessment parameters; (ii) Life Cycle Inventory analysis (LCI), an activity for collecting data on inputs and outputs for all processes in the product system; (iii) Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), the phase of the LCA where inventory data on inputs and outputs are translated into indicators about the product system's potential impacts on the environment, on human health, and on the availability of natural resources; and (iv) Interpretation, the phase where the results of the LCI and LCIA

fam fmo fcr

2.3. Gas and electricity rates

(2)

Since 2003, when gas and electricity markets in Spain were liberalized, consumers can choose a supplier and leave the regulated-rate system or remain connected to the regulated market if they prefer not to partake in the liberalized market. Here the regulated-rate system was considered. In the case of natural gas in Spain, the consumer chooses the most adequate rate in function of consumption volume and supply pressure. For the purchase of natural gas, tariff 2.4 from the resolution on regulated natural gas rates [16] was chosen considering the amount of natural gas consumed. This investigation considered a constant cost of Cg 0.025 V/kWh for natural gas, after adding taxes and distributing the xed costs throughout the estimated annual consumption. For electricity purchase, tariff 1.1 was chosen, considering the amount of electricity consumed, from the resolution on regulated electricity rates [17]. Considering other costs such as taxes, and approximating the distribution of xed costs, an electricity price of 0.095 V/kWh was utilized throughout the year. However, there is a supplement that discriminates the price of electricity by hour of use. Hourly discrimination #2 was chosen from reference [17]. The day was divided into two periods: 4 on-peak hours with a 37% increase in price, and the 20 remaining hours with no increase or discount in price. The nal electricity price, Cep, was 0.095 V/kWh for off-peak hours, and 0.130 V/kWh for on-peak hours. For the sale of surplus autogenerated electricity, reference [18] established the tariff and premium, based on the power output and fuel utilized by the plant. Considering the energy demand for the hospital and the nominal power of the cogeneration modules,
Table 3 Selected equipment and matrix of production coefcients. Technology Selected equipment Cost CIi (10 V) TGVA MGWH CGVA CGWH ICVA ICWH FAVA FAWH FMWR ICWR 1530 435 182 30 2.5 6.5 370 200 175 25
3

Utility Nominal power Pnom (MW) 1.21 0.58 0.78 0.57 0.40 0.40 1.26 0.49 0.49 1.00 CG 4.06 2.45 1.20 1.08 VA 1.83 D1 1.00 0.83 1.50 D1 D1 1.00 WH 0.53 0.96 WR 0.20 AA WC EE D1 D1

D1 1.83 2.50 1.23 1.00

D1 D1 D1 D1

0.01 0.01 0.23 0.02

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

1935

Impact Categories Carcinogenic effects on humans Respiratory effects caused by organic substances Respiratory effects caused by inorganic substances Damage caused by climate change Effects caused by ionizing radiation Effects caused by ozone layer depletion Quality damage caused by ecotoxic effects Damage caused by the combined effect of acidification and eutrophication Damage caused by land occupation and land conversion

Damage Categories

Human health

Ecosystem quality

Damage caused by extraction of minerals Damage caused by extraction of fossil fuels

Resources

Fig. 3. Impact and damage categories for Eco-indicator 99.

are interpreted according to the goal of the study and where sensitivity and uncertainty analysis are performed to qualify the results and the conclusions. There are different available impact assessment methods that utilize different environmental criteria and therefore evaluate and assess different environmental aspects. EI-99 [12] was selected because it is widely used in LCA, incorporating relevant environmental burdens into different impact categories, which in turn allow the evaluation of damages to human health, ecosystem quality, and resources. Furthermore, the LCA results of EI-99 are aggregated into an easily understandable number, the Single Score, and from a computational point of view, are appropriate to be integrated into an optimization model. The EI-99 method (utilized for the LCIA) considers the values of eleven impact categories, which are added into three damage categories (Fig. 3), weighted, and then aggregated into an index, the Single Score, which represents the overall environmental load in points. One point (pt) can be interpreted as one thousandth of the annual environmental load of one average European inhabitant. In order to account for the subjectivity of the impact assessment procedure, EI-99 presents three different perspectives, with different impact perceptions, different normalizing factors and weights and thus, leading to different results. The Hierarchist version of the damage model was selected for its balanced time perspective. The CO2 emissions associated with the production of each type of technology were calculated utilizing SimaPro, entering data on the manufacturing of the equipment (materials) and selecting the nal inventory for CO2 (utilizing IDEMAT, ETH/ESU, and Ecoinvent databases [22e24]). The following assumptions have been considered: 100% of the materials was landlled (worst case scenario, no recycling), any oil or uid was considered as an emission into the soil, and gases (R134a, for example) were considered to be discharged into the atmosphere. Transportation of the equipment fullled European directive EURO V [25], using a 32t-truck. Average product manufacturing was considered for each metal [24]. The Single Score was obtained when utilizing the EI-99 method to evaluate the overall environmental impact of the inventory stage. Table 4 presents the technologies, the material composition, the CO2 emissions associated with each technology, CO2I, and the Single Score for each technology obtained by applying EI-99, SSI(i). The CO2 emissions associated with the consumption of natural gas in Spain were also obtained by utilizing SimaPro, and calculated as EMg 0.272 kg CO2 per kWh of consumed natural gas (utilizing the related emissions of burning natural gas, from the IDEMAT 2001 database [22], and the total aggregated system inventory for a natural gas consumer in Spain, from the Ecoinvent

database [24]). The single score obtained when utilizing the EI-99 method was SSg 0.0378 pts per kWh consumed. The system boundaries were dened as seen in Fig. 4, in which the autogenerated electricity sold to the grid was evaluated at the same environmental cost as the electricity purchased from the grid. The concept of avoided emissions is presented as the emissions avoided elsewhere with the production of electricity by the cogeneration module (avoiding the purchase of electricity from the grid). The avoided emissions were considered as the difference between the emissions associated with the generation of electricity and the purchase from the grid. The CO2 emissions associated with the electricity mix in Spain were also calculated by SimaPro, considering the proportions (25.8% Coal, 24.4% Natural gas in combined cycle, 19.7% Nuclear, 10.4% Others (biomass, cogeneration, minihydraulic), 9.4% Eolic, 9.4% Hydraulic, and 0.8% Fuel-gas) to produce the electricity consumed [26]. The average CO2 emissions associated with electricity in Spain in 2007 were calculated utilizing the Ecoinvent database [24], as being EMe 0.385 kg CO2 per kWh consumed. The single score obtained when utilizing EI-99 was SSe 0.0226 pts per kWh consumed. Special care was taken to correctly distinguish the electricity mix used in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, as the Canary Islands present a different mix [27] (66.8% Fuel-gas, 30.1% Natural gas in combined cycle, and 3.1% Eolic), based mainly on fuel-gas (gaseous renery products, may include coal gas, syngas, ethane, and propane or LPG). The values for Santa Cruz de Tenerife were EMe 0.536 kg CO2 per kWh consumed and SSe 0.0699 pts per kWh consumed.

Table 4 Technologies, material composition, CO2 emissions, and EI-99 Single Score. Technology TGVA MGWH CGVA CGWH ICVA ICWH FAVA FAWH FMWR Material composition (kg) 9080 kg steel, 500 kg aluminum 5700 kg steel 1000 kg cast iron, 1850 kg steel, 50 kg aluminum 360 kg stainless steel 850 kg steel, 25 kg aluminum 760 kg stainless steel 3700 kg iron alloy, 10,044 kg steel 9 000 kg steel 20 kg aluminum, 2000 kg steel, 500 kg copper, 1000 kg high-impact PVC, 135 kg R134a cooling uid, 360 kg lubricating oil 3500 kg steel, 1605 kg high-impact PVC CO2I (kg CO2) 80,500 37,350 15,810 3050 2350 5010 98,600 58,900 85,420 SSI (pts) 8700 4030 1420 205 251 532 11,100 5890 3130

ICWR

23,530

2990

1936

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

System boundaries Market Purchased electricity Ep Sold electricity Es Fuel Fg Trigeneration System Consumer center Electricity Heat Cooling

The installed power PIN(i) for each technology i was given by

PINi NINi$Pnom i NINi YINi$NIN BIGi with YINif0; 1g

(6) (7)

EMe SSe

EMg, SSg

Considering that the year was divided into d representative days, which were in turn subdivided into h hours, (d,h) represented the hth hour of the dth representative day. The annual operation impact (SSope), associated with the operation of the system was expressed by

SSope
Fig. 4. System boundaries.

X X
d h

SSg $Fg d; h SSe $Ep d; h SSe $Es d; h

(8)

The characterization factors used in the EI-99 method explain the Single Scores obtained for the electricity purchased from the grid (SSe 0.0226 pts per kWh) and natural gas (SSg 0.0378 pts per kWh). The extraction of natural gas is signicantly penalized when evaluating the damage caused by the extraction of fossil fuels (Characterization factors in the Impact Assessment section of [19]), resulting in a high value of damage to resources. The functional unit is a key element of LCA which has to be clearly dened. It is a measure of the function of the studied system and provides a reference to which the inputs and outputs can be related. LCA reports emissions on a chosen functional unit basis, enabling the comparison of essentially different systems. The functional unit was the production of the demanded energy services during one year of operation (8 760 h) of the different alternatives. Optimization techniques based on Mixed Integer Linear Programming are useful to determine the best structure for the energy supply system [28e31]. In order to accomplish this, the developed model implicitly compares the annual optimal operation of all possible structures. This means that it compares the annual optimal operation for all feasible combinations of different technologies and the different numbers of installed equipment. The optimal solution is the global optimum. The model considers binary variables (0/1) indicating respectively the absence (0) or presence (1) of the different technologies in the structure of the energy supply system. In general, these variables are free variables during the optimization process, but can also be set by the analyst. For instance, when determining the optimum structure of a conventional energy supply system consisting of boilers, vapor compression refrigerators and cooling towers, the binary variables corresponding to cogeneration modules and absorption refrigerators are set to zero. The model also contains integer variables, which represent the number of equipment for each different technology. 3.1. Objective function The rst environmental objective function was to minimize the EI-99 Single Score evaluation of global environmental impact (considering human health, ecosystem quality, and consumption of resources), considered as the total annual impact (SStot), which included the annual xed impact of the equipment (SSx) and the annual operation impact (SSope), associated with the operation of the system.

SSe$Es(d,h) were considered as the impact avoided elsewhere with the sale of electricity produced by the cogeneration module. 3.2. Operation Operation was subject to capacity limits, production restrictions, and balance equations. 3.2.1. Capacity limits For each period (d,h) For each technology i

POPi; d; h$PINi
3.2.2. Production restrictions For each period (d,h) For cogeneration modules i MGWH or TGVA

(9)

POPi; d; h NOPi; d; h$Pnom i with NOPi; d; hf0; 1; .NINig

For each technology i For each utility j

10

Xi; j; d; h KTUi; j$POPi; d; h

(11)

Restriction (10) imposed that the cogeneration modules operated at full load. This is a common practice to facilitate operation. 3.2.3. Balance equations For each period (d,h) For each utility j

Prodj; d; h Consj; d; h Pj; d; h Sj; d; h Wj; d; h Dj; d; h 0 Prodj; d; h Consj; d; h Pj; d; h Sj; d; h Wj; d; h Dj; d; h X
i

12 (13)

Xi; j; d; hYTUPi; j with YTUPi; jf0; 1g Xi; j; d; hYTUCi; j withYTUCi; jf0; 1g

X
i

(14)

YUPj$Consj; d; h Dj; d; h with YUPjf0; 1g (15) YUSj$Prodj; d; h with YUSjf0; 1g YUWj$Prodj; d; h with YUWjf0; 1g (16) (17)

Min SStot SSfix SSope X

i

(4)

The annual xed impact of the equipment (SSx) was expressed by

SSfix fame $

NINi$SSIi

(5)

YUDj$Prodj; d; h Pj; d; h with YUDjf0; 1g (18)

The environmental amortization factor fame represents the apportionment of the global environmental impact throughout the system's lifetime, and was considered equal to 0.10/yr.

YTUP(i,j) was 1 when technology i produced utility j. YTUC(i,j) was 1 when technology i consumed utility j. Production Prod and

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

1937

Consumption Cons corresponded to internal utility ows whereas Purchase P, Sale S, Waste W, and Demand D were the interchanges of utilities between the energy supply system and the environment. Binary variables YUP(j), YUS(j), YUW(j) and YUD(j) indicated, respectively, the possibility of such interchanges. 3.3. Other criteria The second environmental objective function considered was the minimization of the total annual emissions (CO2 tot), which included the annual xed emissions of the equipment (CO2 x) and the annual operation emissions (CO2 ope), associated with the operation of the system. Equations (4), (5) and (8) were changed to

enforce any integer restrictions contained in a model. The advanced capabilities of LINGO such as cut generation, tree reordering, advanced heuristic and presolve strategies are used as needed. The branch and bound solver will, in turn, call the linear solver, which uses the revised simplex method with product form inverse. 4. Results and discussion When the scenario dened by the model and conditions previously shown was specied, the following results were obtained. The model was solved by LINGO, freely selecting the technologies to be installed and minimizing the different objective functions considered, resulting in three optimal congurations. Table 5 shows the results for the EI-99 and CO2 optimal, and Table 6 shows the results for the economic optimal. The results for the EI-99 optimal and CO2 optimal suggested the installation of conventional equipment for the peninsular locations: hot water boilers, vapor compression chillers, and cooling towers. When considering the case of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, as the local electricity supply depends on fuel-gas (with a higher emission value and associated global environmental impact), cogeneration modules were installed due to the considerable difference between the impacts of the local electricity supplied by the grid and the electricity produced by cogeneration modules. Different congurations were presented for both environmental objective functions as indicated in Table 5. One absorption chiller was replaced by one mechanical chiller when changing the objective function from CO2 emissions to EI-99 Single Score. The environmental results were not totally unexpected, as according to Fumo et al. [33] and Conde et al. [34] trigeneration systems have a great potential to reduce emissions; but this reduction depends on the energy consumption proles and the fuel mix of the electric grid region. In Canada, for example, Ontario's electrical utility relies mainly on nuclear and hydraulic energy and fossil fuels (mainly coal); the case study presented by Rosen [35] suggested that electrical utility-based cogeneration would benet Ontario or a region with similar characteristics in that for the same services delivered, cogeneration reduced environmental and health consequences.

Min CO2 tot CO2 fix CO2 ope CO2 fix fame $ CO2 ope X
i

(19) (20)

NINi$CO2 Ii

X X
d h

EMg $Fg d; h EMe $Ep d; h EMe $Es d; h (21)

Another objective function was introduced into the model, to consider the economic aspect of the energy supply system installed, in terms of the total annual cost Ctot (in V/yr), which minimized equipment and fuel costs as well as purchase/sale of energy services. Equations (4), (5) and (8) were changed to:

Min Ctot Cfix Cope Cfix fam$ Cope X

i

(22) (23) (24)

NINi$CIi Cg $Fg d; h Cep $Ep d; h Ces $Es d; h

X X
d h

3.4. Optimization The MILP model was implemented in the LINGO [32] modeling language and optimizer, a commercial software package for solving optimization problems. LINGO uses the branch and bound solver to
Table 5 EI-99 and CO2 optimal for the different geographic locations.a Sta. Cruz Tenerife CO2 Composition TGVA,CGVA MGWH CGWH ICWH ICVA, FAVA FAWH FMWH ICWR Fg Ep Es SSI SSg$Fg SSe$Ep SSe$Es Total SS CO2I EMg$Fg EMe$Ep EMe$Es Total CO2 Number 0 2 1 1 0 1 6 4 9260 1904 1450 4543 350,028 133,089 101,355 386,305 74,830 2,518,784 1,020,288 777,204 2,836,698 Sta. Cruz Tenerife EI-99 Number 0 2 1 1 0 0 7 4 7800 2432 1214 4267 294,846 170,012 84,865 384,260 77,482 2,121,600 1,303,552 650,704 2,851,930 Almera Number

Valencia Number 0 0 5 0 0 0 6 4 6129 3779 0 3177 231,694 85,399 0 320,270 62,189 1,667,220 1,454,812 0 3,184,221

Zaragoza Number 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 3 8703 3572 0 2272 328,984 80,730 0 411,986 43,057 2,367,296 1,375,264 0 3,785,617

Huesca Number 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 2 10,185 3465 0 1722 385,001 78,302 0 465,025 33,077 2,770,376 1,333,911 0 4,137,364

Teruel Number 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 1 11,498 3352 0 1130 434,627 75,750 0 511,507 22,487 3,127,474 1,290,431 0 4,440,393

Lugo Number 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 11,005 3250 0 205 415,971 73,451 0 489,627 3050 2,993,234 1,251,263 0 4,247,547

0 0 5 0 0 0 6 4 5604 3803 0 3177 211,816 85,939 0 300,931 62,189 1,524,178 1,464,003 0 3,050,371

a Fg (MWh/yr), Ep (MWh/yr), Es (MWh/yr), SSx (pts/yr), SSg$Fg (pts/yr), SSe$Ep (pts/yr), SSe$Es (pts/yr), SStot (pts/yr), CO2 x (kg CO2/yr), EMg$Fg (kg CO2/yr), EMe$Ep (kg CO2/ yr), EMe$Es (kg CO2/yr), CO2 tot (kg CO2/yr).

1938 Table 6 Economic optimal for the different geographic locations.a Sta. Cruz Tenerife Composition TGVA,CGVA MGWH CGWH ICWH ICVA, FAVA FAWH FMWH ICWR Fg Ep Es fam$CIi Cost Fg Cost Ep Prot Es Total cost
a

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939

Almera Number 0 2 3 3 0 1 5 4 25,592 42 6447 495,535 639,792 4558 496,388 643,497

Valencia Number 0 2 3 3 0 1 5 4 25,922 59 6447 495,535 648,048 6659 496,393 653,849

Zaragoza Number 0 3 3 4 0 1 3 3 37,324 29 11,389 510,830 933,092 3207 876,960 570,169

Huesca Number 0 2 7 3 0 1 2 3 29,687 0 6695 396,635 742,179 0 515,480 623,333

Teruel Number 0 2 8 3 0 1 1 2 30,199 0 6453 357,535 754,963 0 496,870 615,628

Lugo Number 0 2 8 3 0 0 0 2 27,200 0 5467 271,285 680,005 0 420,992 530,298

Number 0 1 2 2 0 1 6 4 13,119 296 1530 427,340 327,980 33,294 117,796 670,818

Fg (MWh/yr), Ep (MWh/yr), Es (MWh/yr), fam$CIi (V/yr), Cost Fg (V/yr), Cost Ep (V/yr), Prot Es (V/yr), Total cost (V/yr).

For the economic optimal, cogeneration modules, hot watere cooling water heat exchangers, and absorption chillers were installed for all locations (see Table 6). All systems took advantage of the lower purchase cost of natural gas and realized prot by selling the autogenerated electricity to the electric grid. A sensitivity analysis was carried out in Lozano et al. [14], where the effects of the nancial market conditions and energy prices (electricity and natural gas) on the optimal structure of the trigeneration system were analyzed. When the amortization and maintenance factor fam increased, the number of cogeneration modules and absorption chillers as well as the sale of electricity decreased; the same trend was observed when increasing the price of natural gas. An additional sensitivity analysis is to investigate how the carbon emissions factor of the electricity purchased from the grid affects the conguration of the system. For example, in open market arrangements, consumers can buy electricity from a range of service providers, some offering low carbon and/or renewablyfuelled electricity. The a factor was introduced by Carvalho et al. [36] as being the ratio CO2 emissions associated with the consumption of natural gas to electricity. For the hospital in Zaragoza a sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the a factor: when a was close to 1.5, cogeneration modules were installed, and from 2.0 onwards, absorption chillers were also installed [36]. 5. Conclusion and nal remarks For different representative geographic locations in Spain, a mixed integer linear programming model optimized the conguration and operation of a trigeneration system to be installed in a hospital. Three objective functions were considered: the EI-99 Single Score (global environmental perspective), kilograms of CO2 emissions, and the total annual cost (in V/yr). The objective was rstly, to obtain the thermal loads of a building of the tertiary sector (which are highly dependent on the climatic conditions), and secondly, to verify whether inuence of local economic/environmental conditions existed. Also considered were the price of energy resources, the price and amortization possibilities of the equipment, the options to sell the surplus electricity to the electric grid, and the possibility that the system helped mitigate climate change (avoiding emissions elsewhere). The optimal results for the objective functions regarding the Ecoindicator 99 Single Score and the CO2 emissions were identical for the hospitals located in peninsular Spain. The environmental results suggested the installation of conventional equipment and a purchase

of electricity from the electric grid to attend the demands of cooling and electricity. Emissions savings by cogeneration depended highly on the local electricity supply mix that would be substituted, which was why Santa Cruz de Tenerife presented different results from the rest of locations, as it is supplied by a different electricity mix (with higher associated emissions/single score). The economic optimal results suggested the installation of cogeneration modules, hot water boilers, and absorption chillers for all locations except for Lugo, which did not demand cooling and therefore no cooling equipment was installed. The cogeneration modules were used to benet from the lower price of natural gas selling surplus autogenerated electricity to the grid, to minimize the total annual cost.

Acknowledgments This work was developed within the framework of research project ENE2007-67122, partially funded by the Spanish Government (Energy program) and the European Union (FEDER program). Monica Carvalho is supported by the EU Program of High Level Scholarships for Latin America (Alban Scholarship No. E06D100314BR). References
[1] MANAGENERGY e Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. See also: http://www.managenergy.net/download/nr128.pdf; 2005. [2] Maglorie P, Heteu T, Bolle L. Economie dnergie en trignration. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 2002;41:1151e9. [3] Chicco G, Mancarella P. Assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions from cogeneration and trigeneration systems. Part I models and indicators. Energy 2008;33(3):410e7. [4] Chicco G, Mancarella P. Assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions from cogeneration and trigeneration systems. Part II analysis techniques and application cases. Energy 2008;33(3):418e30. [5] Council Directive 93/76/EEC, to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efciency (SAVE). Ofcial Journal 22.09.1993;L237:0028e30. [6] COM 2002/91/EC, directive on the energy performance of buildings. Ofcial Journal 4.1.2003;L1:65e71. [7] Levine M, rge-Vorsatz D, Blok K, Geng L, Harvey D, Lang S, et al. Residential and commercial buildings. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA, editors. Climate change 2007: Mmtigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on cimate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2007. [8] ASHRAE. Sustainability. In: 2009 ASHRAE handbook e fundamentals; 2009. Atlanta. [9] Epa e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. Scientic Applications International Corporation (SAIC); 2006. [10] Curran MA, editor. Environmental life cycle assessment. McGraw-Hill; 1996.

M. Carvalho et al. / Energy 36 (2011) 1931e1939 [11] AEMET e State Meteorological Agency [in Spanish: Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa]. See also: http://www.aemet.es; 2009 [accessed 21.04.09].. [12] Goedkoop M, Effting S, Collignon M. The eco-indicator 99. Amersfoot: PR Consultants B.V.; 2000. [13] Snchez S. Diseo ptimo de sistemas de trigeneracin con motores alternativos de combustin interna para el sector residencial comercial [Optimal design of trigeneration systems with reciprocating internal combustion engines for the residential-commercial sector]. Spain: Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Zaragoza; 2003 [in Spanish]. [14] Lozano MA, Ramos JC, Carvalho M, Serra LM. Structure optimization of energy supply systems in tertiary sector buildings. Energy and Buildings 2009;41 (10):1063e75. [15] Horlock JH. Cogeneration-combined heat and power (CHP). Pergamon; 1987. [16] RESOLUCIN 7575/2007 del Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio sobre tarifas de suministro de gas natural) [RMITC 7575/2007 of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade, on the supply tariffs of natural gas]. BOE 2007;87:15600e1 [in Spanish]. [17] RD 1634/2006, por el que se establece la tarifa elctrica a partir de 1 de enero de 2007 [RD 1634/2006, on the establishment of electric tariffs from Jan. 1, 2007]. BOE 2006;312:46656e72 [in Spanish]. [18] RD 661/2007, por el que se regula la actividad de produccin de energa elctrica en rgimen especial [RD 661/2007, on the regulation of electricity production in a special regime]. BOE 2007;126:22846e86 [in Spanish]. [19] Simapro e life cycle assessment software. See also: http://www.pre.nl/simapro. [20] ISO 14040. Environmental management e life cycle assessment e principles and framework. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 2006. [21] ISO 14044. Environmental management e life cycle assessment e requirements and guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization (ISO); 2006. [22] IDEMAT. Section for environmental product development. The Netherlands: Faculty of Industrial Design, Delft University of Technology. See also: http:// www.idemat.nl; 2001. [23] Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N. SimaPro database manual e the ETH-ESU 96 libraries. ESU Services. See also: http://www.pre.nl/download/manuals/ DatabaseManualETH-ESU96.pdf; 2004. [24] Ecoinvent v2.0 Database. Swiss centre for life cycle inventories. Switzerland: Dbendorf; 2007. [25] Directive 2005/55/EC. Relating to the measures to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from compression-ignition engines for use in vehicles. Ofcial Journal of the European Union. See also: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uriOJ:L:2005:275:0001: 0163:EN:PDF; October 20, 2005. [26] REE e Red Elctrica de Espaa (Power network of Spain). El sistema elctrico espaol en el 2007 [The Spanish electricity system in 2007]. See also: http:// www.ree.es/sistema_electrico/pdf/infosis/Inf_Sis_Elec_REE_2007_ ElSectorElectrico_v2.pdf; 2007 [in Spanish].. [27] REE e Red Elctrica de Espaa (Power network of Spain). El sistema elctrico por comunidades autnomas [The electricity system per autonomous communities]. See also: http://www.ree.es/sistema_electrico/pdf/infosis/ Inf_Sis_Elec_REE_2007_ElSistElectporCCAA_v2.pdf; 2007 [in Spanish]. [28] Lozano MA. Diseo ptimo de sistemas simples de cogeneracin [Optimal design of simple cogeneration systems]. Informacin Tecnolgica 2001;12 (4):53e8 [in Spanish]. [29] Shang Z, Kokossis A. A systematic approach to the synthesis and design of exible site utility systems. Chemical Engineering Science 2005;60(16):4431e51. [30] Oh SD, Oh HS, Kwak HI. Economic evaluation for adoption of cogeneration system. Applied Energy 2007;84(3):266e78. [31] Lozano MA, Ramos JC, Serra LM. Cost optimization of the design of CHCP (combined heat, cooling and power) systems under legal constraints. Energy 2010;35(2):794e805. [32] LINDO Systems. LINGO: the modeling language and optimizer. See also: http:// www.lindo.com. [33] Fumo N, Mago PJ, Chamra LM. Emission operational strategy for combined cooling, heating, and power systems. Applied Energy 2009;86(11):2344e50. [34] Conde E, Ramos A, Reina P. Analysis of cogeneration in the present energy framework. Fuel Processing Technology 2006;87(2):163e8. [35] Rosen M. Energy, environmental, health and cost benets of cogeneration from fossil fuels and nuclear energy using the electrical utility facilities of a province. Energy for Sustainable Development 2009;13(1):43e51. [36] Carvalho M, Serra LM, Lozano MA. Optimal synthesis of trigeneration systems subject to environmental constraints. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on efciency, cost, optimization, simulation and environmental impact of energy systems. Brazil: Foz do Iguau; 2009.

1939

NOMENCLATURE
AA: Ambient air Ces: Market price of the electricity sold to the grid [V/kWh]

Cep: Market price of the electricity purchased from the grid [V/kWh] Cg: Market price of natural gas [V/kWh] Cx: Annual cost of the equipment [V/yr] Cope: Annual operation costs [V/yr] Ctot: Total annual cost [V/yr] CG: Natural gas CGVA: Steam boiler CGWH: Hot water boiler CIi: Investment cost of the equipment of technology i [V] CO2 tot: Total annual CO2 emissions [kg CO2/yr] CO2 x: Annual xed CO2 emissions of the equipment [kg CO2/yr] CO2 ope: Annual operation CO2 emissions [kg CO2/yr] Cons(j,d,h): Consumption of utility j in the period (d,h) [MWh] D: Demand D(j,d,h): Demand of utility j in the period (d,h) [MWh] Ec: Generated electricity [MWh/yr] Ed: Electricity demand [MWh/yr] Ep: Purchased electricity [MWh/yr] Es: Sold electricity [MWh/yr] EE: Electricity EEE: Equivalent electrical efciency [%] EMe: CO2 emissions associated with electricity [kg CO2/kWh] EMg: CO2 emissions associated with natural gas [kg CO2/kWh] Fc: Consumption of primary energy [MWh] Fg: Consumption of natural gas [MWh/yr] fam: Amortization and maintenance factor [yr1] fame: Environmental amortization factor [yr1] FAVA: Double effect absorption chiller FAWH: Single effect absorption chiller fcr: Capital recovery factor [yr1] fmo: Maintenance and operation factor [yr1] FMWR: Mechanical chiller ICVA: Vaporehot water heat exchanger ICWH: Hot waterecooling water heat exchanger ICWR: Cooling tower iyr: Interest rate [yr1] KTU(i,j): Absolute value of the production coefcient MGWH: Gas engine hot water recovery system NIN(i): Number of pieces of equipment installed for technology i NIN_BIG(i): Maximum limit for the number of equipment NOP(i,d,h): Number of pieces of equipment of technology i operating in the period (d,h) nyr: Equipment lifetime [yrs] P: Purchase P(j,d,h): Purchase of utility j in the period (d,h) [MWh] Pnom(i): Nominal power of the equipment [MW] PIN(i): Installed power of technology i [MW] POP(i,d,h): Production of technology i in the period (d,h) [MWh] Prod(j,d,h): Production of utility j in the period (d,h) [MWh] Qc: Cogenerated useful heat [MWh] Qd: Heat demand [MWh] Rd: Cooling demand [MWh] S: Sale S(j,d,h): Sale of utility j in the period (d,h) [MWh] SSx: Annual xed impact of the equipment, in terms of EI-99 Single Score [points/yr] SSope: Annual operation impact, in terms of EI-99 Single Score [points/yr] SStot: Total annual impact, in terms of EI-99 Single Score [points/yr] SSe: EI-99: Single Score for electricity [points/kWh] SSg: EI-99: Single Score for natural gas [points/kWh] SSI: EI-99: Single Score for the production of each piece of equipment i [points] t0: Ambient temperature [ C] TGVA: Gas turbine heat recovery boiler VA: High temperature steam W: Waste W(j,d,h): Waste of utility j in the period (d,h) [MWh] WC: Cold water WH: Hot water WR: Cooling water X(i,j,d,h): Energy ow of utility j interchanged with technology i in the period (d,h) [MWh] YIN(i): Binary variable (0/1) indicating whether technology i was installed YUD(j): Binary variable (0/1) indicating the possibility of demand YUP(j): Binary variable (0/1) indicating the possibility of purchase YUS(j): Binary variable (0/1) indicating the possibility of sale YUW(j): Binary variable (0/1) indicating the possibility of waste YTUC(i, j): Binary variable (0/1) indicating the possibility of consumption of utility j by technology i YTUP(i,j): Binary variable (0/1) indicating the possibility of production of utility j by technology i