Figure 1: The Forbes Complex cogeneration unit provides electricity for HSU and heats seven buildings on campus. The map/building/forbes.shtml Forbes Complex can be seen on the left. The Kinesiology building can also be seen in the background.
Project data
Location Arcata, California
Status Deployed
Instance of Combined heat and power system
OKH Manifest Download

This page provides information on the Forbes Complex cogeneration unit connected to the Joseph M. Forbes Physical Education Complex, located on the Cal Poly Humboldt, HSU, campus in Arcata California.

Background[edit | edit source]

Forbes Complex[edit | edit source]

Figure 2: The main entrance of the Joseph M. Forbes Physical Education Complex.

The Forbes Complex, Figure 2, was first built in 1973. The building was originally constructed to produce coaches and PE teachers. 30 years have passed since the construction of the Forbes Complex, and priorities have changed since the 70's. The Forbes Complex needed to be remodeled to meet new concerns such as the need for new types of physical education, and to reduce energy consumption levels in the Forbes Complex.

Cogeneration[edit | edit source]

Figure 3: An example of a large scale cogeneration plant, located in Denmark.

Cogeneration (also combined heat and power or CHP), is the process of producing electricity as well as useful heat energy. This useful heat energy is often a steam byproduct from an engine and can be used as a form of heating for domestic or industrial purposes, such as heating water. There are three main types of CHP production: large, mini, and micro. Large CHP production is mainly used in factories or large energy producing settings such as Figure 3. Most large scale CHP use is in other locations like Denmark and Scandinavian countries. Mini and micro CHP are defined by their energy production. MicroCHP usually produces 5 kWe (kilowatt of electricity) or less and is used in houses or small businesses. MiniCHP produces between 5 kWe and 500 kWe and is used in institutions and large businesses. The Forbes Complex cogeneration unit is larger than a miniCHP system and could be considered a larger scale application but is very close to the miniCHP bracket.[1]

Decentralization paradigm[edit | edit source]

HSU's cogeneration system, and most small scale cogeneration systems, are examples of decentralized energy (also distributed power or distributed generation): the generation of energy from several smaller plants rather than a single conventional power plant. Typically these plants are on-site or otherwise near the population being served. With the ability to tailor a system to local energy habits combined with a reduction in line losses, decentralized systems can achieve higher efficiencies.

Forbes Complex retrofit[edit | edit source]

Overview[edit | edit source]

The retrofit of the Forbes Complex was aimed at rejuvenating the aging building. The project renovated roughly 200,000 square feet of obsolete classrooms. To address serious health and safety problems, the project upgraded building systems and fixed deferred maintenance problems. The project also addressed Title IX problems by redistributing space for gender equality. Another upgrade was the installation of the HSU Forbes Complex cogeneration system.[2]

Cogeneration design and installation[edit | edit source]

The designs for the cogeneration system commenced in September 2003 by DTE Energy, and the installation of the Energy/Now ENI 830 cogeneration unit commenced in November of 2003. From information gathered the cogeneration system was completed in July of 2004[3] and was installed by NORESCO as shown in Figure 1.The system has not been completely functional since its installment because when designing the system, DTE did not follow the engine manufacturers recommendations, which has caused most of the problems.

Project cost[edit | edit source]

The total project was estimated at $4.8 million in February of 2004, which included the other energy saving installments. Most of the cost was to be paid for through incentives from PG&E or made up for in energy savings from PG&E.[4] A document obtained from PG&E states that the Forbes Complex cogeneration project had "total eligible costs" of $2,985,795.[5]Enforcing the idea that project was paid for by a third party, the HSU Facilities Management site states that the total project cost was $4,808.

Forbes cogeneration cycle[edit | edit source]

The Forbes Complex cogeneration system uses a reciprocating internal combustion engine. As previously mentioned the system is close in size to the miniCHP classification and provides heat for the pool, Forbes Complex building, Kinesiology Athletics building, Science A,B,C,D and Wildlife buildings.[6]

Figure 4: The Forbes Complex cogeneration cycle. First, natural gas is combusted at (1) to produce mechanical energy and hot gas. An electric generator at (2) converts mechanical energy from (1) to electrical which is distributed to the grid at (3). Hot gas from (1) flows through a heat exchanger at (4) which transfers heat to the HVAC system at (5).
Figure 5: Power from the electric generator (center) is transferred from the cogeneration unit (right) to a transformer (far left) or steps (2) to (3) in Figure 4.

Step 1: Combustion of natural gas[edit | edit source]

The reciprocating internal combustion engine in step (1) of Figure 4 uses natural gas as its fuel source. Natural gas is commonly used in the United States for heating and energy production. Natural gas varies in composition but is mainly composed of methane, typically 85%. Other gases include: nitrogen, butane, propane, ethane, and helium.[7]

The general equation for complete combustion of methane is:

[8]

Reciprocating internal combustion engines use cylinders, much like a car, to take expanding gas from combustion and create mechanical energy, in the form of shaft rotation. As seen in step (1) of Figure 4, air and natural gas enter the combustion chamber, gas is then combusted resulting in mechanical energy and hot flue gas (carbon dioxide, water, and heat as seen in the above equation).

Steps 2 and 3: Conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy and distribution to grid[edit | edit source]

In order to convert the mechanical energy produced in step (1) of Figure 4 into electrical energy an electric generator is used, step (2) of Figure 4. After conversion the resulting voltage is too low for transmission. A transformer, Figure 5, increases the voltage which then allows electricity be distributed to the grid, step (3).

Steps 4 and 5: Heat exchange and distribution to campus facilities[edit | edit source]

Heat can be recovered from hot flue gas in step (1) of Figure 4 via use of a heat exchanger. Heat exchangers exchange heat between fluids. In the case of the Forbes Complex the fluids are air and water. In step (4) of Figure 4 hot flue gas travels through a pipe network allowing heat to be transferred to water which can then be circulated through the heating and ventilation system (HVAC) of campus facilities, step (5) of Figure 4.

Amount of electricity produced[edit | edit source]

In 2006 and 2007 HSU consumed 10 million kW-hr of energy.[9] This is an average energy consumption of 1,141 kW or at peak times about 2,800 kW. When in operation the system produces roughly 750 kW of power, electricity is tied to the HSU grid. Another cogeneration unit on campus, the HSU dorm cogeneration unit, produces roughly 10% of HSU's energy.[4] During peak times the Forbes Complex could produce roughly 27% of HSU's power. The cogeneration unit is capable of producing 100% of the heat for the Forbes Complex heating requirements.

Current status[edit | edit source]

Forbes Complex cogeneration is currently partially operational. Several breakdowns and inefficiencies in the system have occurred. According to HSU Facilities Management staff, the problems stem from the system design. DTE Energy did not follow design specifications of the engine manufacturer. Facilities Management believes the next round of repairs will make the plant dependable.

Engineering students in Cal Poly Humboldt's Department of Environmental Resources Engineering are performing the second phase of studies that investigate a fuel cell system as a replacement for the Forbes Complex cogeneration unit.

The first phase of the project was performed in Solar Thermal Engineering (ENGR 477, Fall 2013). The engineering students performed feasibility analyses to determine which fuel cell technology would be physically and economically viable. Four fuel cell technologies were considered in these studies: solid oxide, molten carbonate, phosphoric acid, and proton exchange membrane. The results of the studies indicated that the solid oxide and phosphoric acid fuel cell systems would be viable replacements for the existing cogeneration unit. Whereas the molten carbonate and proton exchange membrane technologies were not recommended for use on campus based on size and cost. The only available molten carbonate system is 5 times larger than the existing system and would not fit at the current site. Further, it would be too costly to implement and did not return a net savings by the end of its design life. The proton exchange membrane system would only be viable as a peaking plant, but it was also found to be too large for the existing site. Thus, the solid oxide and phosphoric acid fuel cell systems were recommended for further study.

The second phase of the project is currently underway in Capstone (ENGR 492, Fall 2014). The engineering students are performing a siting assessment and economic analysis to determine which of the two fuel cell technologies should be implemented and how they would incorporate the system into the existing cogeneration heating infrastructure.

Related information[edit | edit source]

HSU dorm cogeneration

Wikipedia: Co-generation

External links[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Cogeneration.(n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration
  2. ↑ Physical Education Project (PEP) Project Objectives. (2007, March 8). Retrieved December 11, 2009, from HSU Facilities Management website: http://web.archive.org/web/20080720140852/http://www.humboldt.edu/%7efacsmgmt/PEP/PhaseII.html
  3. ↑ HSU Completed Projects. (2007, January 4). Retrieved December 11, 2009, from HSU Facilities Management website: http://web.archive.org/web/20090123222853/http://humboldt.edu:80/~facsmgmt/projects/EnergyConservation/EnergyConserv.html
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Kozel, T. (2004). Cogeneration Plant to Provide Electricity and Heat for Humbolt State University. District Energy Now, 19, 4. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20070221211359/http://www.districtenergy.org:80/pdfs/04WinterNewsletter.pdf
  5. ↑ PG&E Self-Generation Incentive Program. (November 2005). Retrieved December 11, 2009
  6. ↑ Personal Interview: Tim Moxon Senior Director of Facilities Management at HSU. Personal Communication. 11/17/09
  7. ↑ Natural Gas.(n.d.).In Wikipedia.Retrieved December 11, 2009,from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
  8. ↑ Combustion.(n.d.).In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion
  9. ↑ HSU Energy Facts and Figures. (n.d.). Retrieved December 11, 2009, from Green Campus Program at HSU website: http://web.archive.org/web/20090609172804/http://www.humboldt.edu:80/~greenhsu/cms/gc/main/hsu-energy-stats
Page data
Part of Engr115 Intro to Engineering
Keywords cogeneration, electricity, energy production, heating and cooling, heating, cooling
Authors Cailan, Curran Benjamin Hamilton, Beth Eschenbach
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Affiliations Cal Poly Humboldt
Language English (en)
What links here Combined heat and power system, Distributed power, Category:Engr115 Intro to Engineering, User:BethEschenbach, User:Curran, User:Cailan, User talk:Curran
Impact 501
Created October 26, 2009 by Cailan
Modified June 9, 2023 by Felipe Schenone
Cite as Cailan, Curran Benjamin Hamilton, Beth Eschenbach (2009–2023). "HSU Forbes Complex cogeneration". Appropedia. Retrieved September 23, 2023.
API queries basic, semantic, html, files, more
Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/w/index.php?title=HSU_Forbes_Complex_cogeneration&oldid=741498"

Discussion[View | Edit]

Brandon Storer Peer Review
1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.
A: The targeted audience for this writing seems to be general. The information given is brief and not in too much depth. The page does give what cogeneration is and ow it is used, but lack to explain in the same detail how the HSU system works or is projected to work.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?
A: The navigation is easy to navigate, saying that I suggest the costs section should be placed towards the end of the page.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.
A: I see no headings used unsuccessfully or the lack of headings. The headings are specific and are in chronological order. The only suggestion would be to create a level 2 heading for the defining of cogeneration and for other examples of it leading into the page.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.
A: The background and technical info sections of the page need to have more clear topic sentences and better supporting data.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) A: The writing does not seem to be objective, so I suggest keeping the page technical and to leave out anything that would sound opinion based or bias.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?
A: There needs to be more photographs and/or diagrams. The page is too plain and a diagram would give the reader a better understanding of cogeneration is there was a diagram.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.
A: Once, you place more photos and/or diagrams, make sure to refer to them and to label them to not confuse the reader.

8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand.
A: Not an RCEA page.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?
A: Can you explain the Basic Cycle of the page a little more in depth?

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?
A: The district energy: winter 2004 newsletter reference is repeated 4 times. I suggest that you take out the repeats to avoid confusing the readers.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?
A: The document is much too short. There needs to be more detail in the basic cycle section of the page along with the technical info section.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?
A: The page has an "ENGR 115: In Progress" banner.

List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)
•The document is easy to navigate and gives lots of references.
•Gives an in-depth definition of cogeneration.

List areas for improvement
•Needs more information
•Needs to remove repeated references
•Needs more pictures and/or diagrams
•Needs to label and refer to the pictures and/or diagrams

Overall comments
•The overall page is good, you just need more information. Also pictures and diagrams are greatly needed, understanding how cogeneration works is much easier to do thru diagrams rather than just text. Also fix the repeating references and clean up the background and technical info sections by using better topic sentences and stronger support for them.
Brandon Storer




Chad Herrick Peer Review

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

I feel the target audience is students who are interested in learning about cogeneration, along with environmentally conscious people.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

For the most part the information is easy to navigate, but the table of contents should be above the first paragraph.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

I think the headings are specific, but are not in logical order. The first paragraph is awkward because it has no heading and contains a lot of information.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

There is only one true paragraph, it has a clear topic paragraph. I think a paragraph or heading should be added that explains the differences in the CHP systems.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

The writing is very objective and explicative.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

The photograph looks like a picture of a cargo container to me it is also too small, make a link to a bigger version. A technical diagram or drawing would be beneficial.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

All figures have good references, and are explained with text


9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

Why is the cogeneration unit not going to be fixed? Who was the third party who helped pay for the unit? This page has well cited sources.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

Yes there are plenty of links to related sites. There is no summary of references.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

It is too short, the technical info needs to be much longer, make a section explaining the CHP systems.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

Yes

13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)


The document has a lot of solid information, and is well cited.

14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)


There needs to be more organization, I feel it has no real logical order.

15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) This page needs to be longer and have more organization.

User:cjh83:Chad Herrick


Name of Editor: Shane Mallory

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience. People interested in doing retrofits for something similar they have. 2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout? I would improve the layout by not putting the subtitles in bold. It dristracts away from the main title above it. There is no graph on the page and I would have a few more pictures and depth in the titles. 3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings. There is no header on the first idea/paragraph. Also is the subtitles in bold are a distraction and pull your attention away. I would also like to see more about the technical information. 4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs. All the paragraphs have a clear topic sentence. The first paragraph starts off real strong with the definition of cogeneration. The first three sentences under technical information don’t really relate to the rest of the information around them. 5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc) The writing is objective. 6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner? The picture is easy to see and understand. It should be larger because it’s a bit a small how it is now. There also should be a big addition of more pictures. Perhaps a diagram. 7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures. The numbers are vaguely explained in the text and in some areas seem irrelevant. The numbers are all cited. I would try and add a graph to visually explain the savings. More detail and explaination of the savings are happening. 8. If this is a RCEA page have the writers clearly presented the bottom line (predicted money and carbon dioxide emissions saved versus actual money and carbon dioxide emissions saved) in a table or graphical format? Suggest improvements to make this comparison easier for the reader to understand. They have not presented this information. It can be clearly presented with its own header and sub sections along with a colorful well displayed graph. 9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”? Where is all the information on the retrofits and more information on their savings. Are the sources of the information clearly presented under references, yes. 10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references? The sites that are linked to are good sites. They are well presented and easy to read. I would add some more links with more variety. 11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed? It is too short. There is a missing space about the retrofits on the cogengeration and no graphs and limited pictures. 12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page? The page has the engr 115 banner at the top and the engr 115 at the bottom. There is no RCEA energy audit at the bottom.


13. List the strengths of document - (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.) Strong explanation of cogeneration.


14. List areas for improvement – (Be sure to address how the Appropedia page looks at this time.)

How does it relate and benefit the people. I would include more graphs and pictures along with detail including how much money this is saving the university or more depth into the amount of energy consumed and maintained. Possibly more updated information with its future.


15. Overall comments – (Any feedback for the authors) Good start, a bit short and vague and leaving the reader with lots of questions.

[Shane Mallory]



User:Julien Coppieters Peer Review

1. Who do you feel is the target audience for the writing in this document? Suggest a change if you think the writing is not appropriate for this audience.

The target audience, I think, is anyone who might be interested in cogeneration and the system at HSU.

2. Is the information presented easy to navigate? Can you find the necessary information easily? How would you improve the layout?

The information is a little scattered. Maybe a little more thought should be put towards the organization of ideas.

3. Are headings used successfully? Are enough headings used? If so, are they specific enough? Are the headings in logical order? If not, would the document be easier to follow with more headings? Level two headings? If so, suggest some headings.

The headings are accurate for the information that follows but could use better organization. The first paragraph is a bit odd as it is the largest and has no headings or apparent organization.

4. Is there a clear topic sentence for each paragraph? Do all following sentences relate to that topic sentence? How could topic sentences of the paragraphs be improved? Suggest improvements for specific paragraphs.

The topic sentences are clear and the sentences following, for the most part, relate back. However, there’s not much written below each heading. I recommend adding some more content to each paragraph.

5. Is the writing objective? Remember this is a technical communication. Make suggestions to avoid bias or opinion in sentences. (For example: eliminate adjectives/adverbs: very, many, large, etc)

The writing is well written and objective.

6. Is each figure or photograph easy to understand? How could the figures be improved? Can you suggest another figure presents the information in a clearer manner?

There’s only one picture and it is a little confusing. I’m not totally sure what I’m looking at. The page could use a few figures explaining the data apparent in the text.

7. Does the writer refer to the figure(s) in the text using figure numbers? Is each figure well described in the text and are the sources cited? Do the figures have captions? Make suggestions to better incorporate figures.

The page lacks any visual figures. There are good figure numbers in the text but they would do best partnered with visuals.

9. Are there any questions you have about the topic that are not addressed? Are the sources of the information clearly presented under “References”?

I’m confused as to what the goal of this project was. What is the data supporting? Was something tested? Sources are well cited.

10. Does the author provide links to related sites? Are there enough or too many? Are they technical enough or too technical for the audience of the document? Is the relevance of each site clear? Is there a summary of references?

There are many relevant links. Well cited and well referenced.

11. Is the document too long or short? (It should be between 2-3 pages). If it is too long, what should be taken out? If it is too short what remains to be addressed?

The document is a bit short. There’s plenty of room to add more content as well as visual aids.

12. Does the page have the “ENGR 115: In Progress” banner? Does the page have the correct categories (ENGR 115 and RCEA if applicable) at the end of page?

Yes.

13. List the strengths of document.

Good information. Sources well cited.

14. List areas for improvement.

The page could use some visual aids. Some more content would be welcome. There’s a lack of organization among ideas.

15. Overall comments.

The page contains good information but needs some more content, visuals and organization.

User:Julien Coppieters

gobly gook[edit source]

asdasdfgjkasfjklasf

Add topic
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.