Design & Analysis of a Biogas Fuelled

Trigeneration System for a Brewery

Student: Robert McKeon

Supervisors: Dr Yaodong Wang, Professor Tony Roskilly

 Introduction
• Aims of the project:
– Undertake an energy audit of the brewery and its
processes

– Design & propose a trigeneration system

– Offer the designed system to Wylam Ltd.

 Objectives
• The main objectives of the project were:
1. Understanding the brewing process
2. Undertaking the Energy Audit
3. Based on the results, design a suitable trigeneration
system
4. Offer the system to the company to help them achieve
their renewable aims
 Design Cases
• There were 6 design cases investigated during the
project:
1. Biogas trigeneration system
2. Biodiesel trigeneration system
3. Oil trigeneration system
4. Biogas CHP system
5. Biodiesel CHP system
6. Oil CHP system
 Trigeneration & CHP
• Trigeneration uses one fuel source to provide three
forms of output energy:
1. Heat
2. Cooling
3. Power
• Increases overall efficiency of the system
• Extracts more energy from the fuel source
• CHP produces Heat and Power from the fuel source
 Energy Audit
• Undertaken to find
– Energy usage of the brewery

– Where areas of improvement were needed

– Capacities needed for system design

• Each process examined fully to find energy inputs

and outputs
• Electrical components also included in audit
Floor Plan
 Energy Audit Results
• The results from the energy audit gave the energy
supply needed from the proposed system
• The system capacities were:
– 131 kW Heat

– 23.7 kW Cooling

– 20 kW Power
System Design
 Eclipse

• Programme used to model the design cases

• Setup in three stages
1. Flow diagram
2. Mass & Energy balance
3. Utility
• Results show energy produced by the system
Eclipse
Eclipse
 Base Case
• Base case design used to keep parameters the same
to ensure good comparison of fuels
• Design using 28 sec oil used by brewery
• Fuel flow rate and some components/parameters
changed to achieve full load
• Genset produced 120 kW to produce enough heat
energy
• Absorption chiller base case was also used
• Not changed however due to its complexity
 Fuels
• Biogas Composition:
Compound Percentage of biogas
CH4 50.97%
CO2 45.35%
N2 3.66%
O2 0.01%

• Biodiesel:
– Waste vegetable oil was used as a cheap, easily
accessible option
• Fuel Oil:
– 28 sec oil used which is already imported onto site
 Results
• Separated into the 3 fuels for analysis and
comparison
• CHP and trigeneration systems compared including:
– System outputs & availability

– Efficiencies – overall & electrical

– Emissions
 Biogas Results
• Could run both Copper and HLT at the same
time
• Produced the most output energy
• Highest efficiency system as expected
 Biogas Results
Case 1 - Both running
Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 64.7 kW 105.7
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 72.5 kW 103.9
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 51.2 kW 102.2
Power output 120 kW 120.9 kW
Case 4 - Biogas CHP
Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 70.5 kW 115.2
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 79.3 kW 113.6
Power output 120 kW 123.2 kW
 Biogas Results
EFFICIENCIES
Case 1 Both Case 4
Biogas Lower Heating value (MJ/kg) 25.54 25.54 MJ/kg
Biogas flowrate (kg/s) 0.01338 0.01338 kg/s
Primary energy consumed (kJ/s) 341.7 341.7 kJ/s
Power output 120.9 123.2 kW
Engine electrical efficiency 35.4 36.1 %
Heat for Copper 64.7 70.5 kW
Heat for HLT 72.5 79.3 kW
Heat for Absorption 51.2 -- kW
Total Heat from exhaust + cooling water 188.4 149.8 kW

System Efficiency 90.52 79.89 %

Heat to Power ratio 1.56 1.22
 Biogas Results
 System requires the most capital investment
 However achieves the greatest savings
 Efficiency of system increased by 43&55% for CHP
and trigeneration respectively
 Emits higher levels of N2 than the other systems
 Biodiesel Results

 Outputs lower than expected for system

 Fuel flow rate too low for maximum output

 System could not cover all capacities

 Biodiesel Results
Case 2 - Both running
Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 50.7 kW 82.8
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 61.4 kW 88.0
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 51.1 kW 102.0
Power output 120 kW 110.4 kW
Copper running
Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 112.4 kW 183.7
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 0 kW 0.0
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 51.8 kW 103.4
Power output 120 kW 110.4 kW
HLT running
Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 0 kW 0.0
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 110.1 kW 157.7
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 51.9 kW 103.6
Power output 120 kW 110.4 kW
 Biodiesel Results
Case 5 - Biodiesel CHP
Heat from Fuel oil Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 66.5 kW 108.7
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 75.9 kW 108.7
Power output 120 kW 112.5 kW
 Biodiesel Results
EFFICIENCIES
Case 2 Both Case 2 Copper Case 2 HLT Case 5

Biodiesel Lower Heating value (MJ/kg) 39.66 39.66 39.66 39.66 MJ/kg

Biodiesel flowrate (kg/s) 0.00814 0.00814 0.00814 0.00814 kg/s

Primary energy consumed (kJ/s) 322.6 322.6 322.6 322.6 kJ/s
Power output 110.4 110.4 110.4 112.5 kW

Engine electrical efficiency 34.2 34.2 34.2 34.9 %

Heat for Copper 50.7 112.4 0.0 66.5 kW

Heat for HLT 61.4 0.0 110.1 75.9 kW
Heat for Absorption 51.1 51.8 51.9 -- kW

Total Heat from exhaust + cooling water 163.2 164.2 162.0 142.4 kW

System Efficiency 84.80 85.11 84.43 79.00 %

Heat to Power ratio 1.48 1.49 1.47 1.27
 Biodiesel Results
 Efficiencies of system good considering low output

 Indicates that with correct parameters could be a good

system

 Main issue is logistics of collecting and importing vegetable

oil

 Lower emissions than Biogas system

 Fuel Oil Results

• Simplest and cheapest system to install

Case 6 – Fuel Oil CHP

• Achieved
Heat higher
from Fuel oil output than biodiesel
Required Available system
Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 67.2 kW 109.8

• Could not run Copper and

HLT heat requirement 69.8
HLT
kW
at
76.5
thekWsame
109.6
time
Power output 120 kW 122.3 kW
 Fuel Oil Results
Case 3 - Both running
Heat from Fuel oil Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 60.8 kW 99.3
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 69.4 kW 99.4
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 50.1 kW 100.0
Power output 120 kW 120.1 kW
Copper running
Heat from Fuel oil Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 120.4 kW 196.7
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 0 kW 0.0
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 55.8 kW 111.4
Power output 120 kW 120.1 kW
HLT running
Heat from Fuel oil Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 0 kW 0.0
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 124.9 kW 178.9
Heat for absorption unit 50.1 kW 54.2 kW 108.2
Power output 120 kW 120.1 kW
 Fuel Oil Results

Case 6 – Fuel Oil CHP

Heat from Fuel oil Required Available Ratio (%)
Copper heat requirement 61.2 kW 67.2 kW 109.8
HLT heat requirement 69.8 kW 76.5 kW 109.6
Power output 120 kW 122.3 kW
 Fuel Oil Results
EFFICIENCIES
Case 3 Both Case 3 Copper Case 3 HLT Case 6

Fuel Oil Lower Heating value (MJ/kg) 42.893 42.893 42.893 42.893 MJ/kg

Fuel Oi flowrate (kg/s) 0.00814 0.00814 0.00814 0.00814 kg/s

Primary energy consumed (kJ/s) 349.0 349.0 349.0 349.0 kJ/s
Power output 120.1 120.1 120.1 122.3 kW

Engine electrical efficiency 34.4 34.4 34.4 35.0 %

Heat for Copper 60.8 120.4 0.0 67.2 kW

Heat for HLT 69.4 0.0 124.9 76.5 kW
Heat for Absorption 50.1 55.8 54.2 -- kW

Total Heat from exhaust + cooling water 180.3 176.2 179.1 143.7 kW

System Efficiency 86.09 84.91 85.74 76.23 %

Heat to Power ratio 1.50 1.47 1.49 1.17
 Fuel Oil Results

 Better as a CHP system for overall efficiency and

savings
 Higher CO2 emissions than other cases
 Emits SO2 – toxic with water
 Analysis – Biogas
• Case 1 has highest efficiency – also most expensive
• Complexity of system is high and may not be worth
the capital investment
• Case 4 has very high efficiency and reduces need for
expensive absorption unit
• AD required for both systems – increasing capital
costs & complexity
 Analysis – Biodiesel
• At full load could be very efficient system
• No need for AD on site so reduces capital costs
• Large amounts of energy lost if running one process
at a time
• CHP system reduces waste and need for absorption
• Issues of using waste vegetable oil as fuel
• Lower emissions than other systems
 Analysis – Fuel Oil
• Much simpler system – requires less capital
investment and change to infrastructure of brewery
• Removes need for AD and waste oil collection
• However has lower efficiency than the other
systems
• Increased emissions of SO2 and CO2
• Higher overall emissions
 Conclusion
• The best overall system is Case 1 – highest
efficiencies and overall savings
• Uses waste products to produce fuel generating a
larger saving
• Requires the largest capital investment
• Energy model used in audit needs to be more
accurate – if run 24/7 lot of energy will be wasted
• CHP system would fit model better
• Best design for brewery – Case 4
 Thank You

ANY QUESTIONS??

• Acknowledgements:
– Yaodong Wang
– Matthew Butcher
– Nadia McPherson