In the first article, I discussed at length why, from my point of view, trying to fix the district heating system (SACET) in the language of heating laymen is a burden for the people of Bucharest.

Technically, we demonstrated that the thermal energy produced in CETs owned by ELCEN and distributed by Termoenergetica owned by Bucharest City Hall (PMB) is not a highly efficient product (as the EU wants through the Cogeneration Directive), that most of the time CETs operate with boilers (high-end equipment used based on the heat load) and that the billions used to restore heat networks is money thrown out the window that will one day solve the problem.

After the 2022 auction for the lease of some hot water boilers, for which not a single participant appeared, on yesterday’s agenda, a decision of the local council to agree to the purchase of some mini CHPs for installation in 20 points of CHPs (PT) with problems was put to the vote. belonging to Thermoenergetics.

https://doc.pmb.ro/consiliu/sediente/494/oz/11255.pdf

For those with patience, there is also a feasibility study above linked by the IT&C Audit Association and Energy & Eco Concept, which is a “masterpiece” of how public money is wasted on unnecessary feasibility studies with a preferred solution. beneficiary (PMB),

This is so standard that there is no point in commenting, but I would like to inform you that: at “West Energo” heat engines work, not steam turbines, and reactivation pumps as a concept in energy do not exist.

2 scenarios are compared:

Scenario 1: Installation of modular capacities for the production of thermal energy, almost mobile container mini-CHP near 20 thermal points.

Scenario 2: The use of modular capacities for thermal energy production, i.e. mobile containerized mini-thermal plants, near the thermal points, equipped as in scenario 1, but with also installed photovoltaic installations, for the production and local use of electricity to limit the consumption of electricity produced from fossil fuels. “

The scenarios are identical as a technical solution, there are no technical differences between the two options, Scenario 2 is Scenario 1 updated for a green future, just as Scenario 1 can burn a mixture of natural gas and hydrogen.

The eliminated scenario, as required by law, is obvious: to do nothing, as if the TEO was doing it for this, and not that everything was perfect.

Unwanted competition at tenders in SF is already eliminated by limiting the type of equipment used: “The use of two boilers instead of one in a mini-plant reduces problems that may arise in the event of a breakdown or temporary technical unreadiness, and this is all the more so because the boilers will be of the type with two different housings for each boiler, these housings work separately. “

The conclusion of the Feasibility Study, obvious since there are no two different solutions compared, is as follows: “The selected constructive option corresponds to scenario 1, which will also be the result of the financial analysis… The reason for the choice (in Scenario 1) is the fact that the first investment urgency is in the provision of thermal energy through mobile container mini-power plants, therefore their equipping with photovoltaic systems is not a necessity, at least in the context of the use of a mini-power plant in the area of ​​thermal points located, in turn, between high-rise blocks, some of which have a height of 10 floors, which significantly reduces the efficiency of photovoltaic systems”.

The remaining pages of the document from 97 to 410 are blah blah blah, completing the feasibility study under current law.

However, there were some very interesting statistics, namely that 20 thermal points provided 53.5% of the energy needed for consumption, none of them could provide 80% of this need, and that Bucharest has 1,094 thermal points with an installed thermal capacity 3417.112 MW.

From the description of this decision, it is clear that hot water from the primary circuit will be heated locally in front of the heating point in order to transfer to the secondary circuit (the network that goes to the units) thermal energy that cannot be provided to these heating points by the primary network of “Termenergetics” and in case of accidents, these mini power plants will be a source of thermal energy.

The chosen technical solution is good from a conceptual point of view, but there are too many modules of mini-power plants of different thermal power (1, 2 and 3.5 MW).

If 35 mini-power plants for 20 heat points, i.e. 75.5 MW of heat, cost 113,038,600 million lei without VAT and 134,515,934 lei with VAT, we get a concrete investment of almost 300 EUR/kW of installed thermal energy (299.44 EUR at the exchange rate of 5 lei). /euro).

This failure option is effectively a local doubling of the existing production capacity in the ELCEN at the other end of the pipes in the primary pipe for these heat points.

It has some advantages:

– provides user comfort,

– eliminates losses during the transportation of thermal energy

– you no longer need to invest money in the ELCEN power plant

– mini-power plants have installed capacity at each PT under 20 MW of consumed fuel and CO certificates have not yet been paid for them₂– appears, therefore, the theoretical price is lower than in the case of CAF from CET.

The disadvantages are that specific investments are high according to special literature and compared to an apartment heating plant (20,000 lei turnkey with projects, gas installation and equipment for a 3-room apartment – i.e. 167 EUR/kW – 24 kW). plant) and that the EU does not like that it is still going for high-efficiency cogeneration, which in Bucharest means investments in energy sources (CET physically and morally worn out) in addition to those in heat networks.

If scenario 2 were used in the feasibility study, cogeneration with gas engines for the same amount of heat would probably be the more cost-effective option. The assumption of source mobility would have been met, even an installation duration of 7.5 months could have been met with minimal planning, but this was undesirable as it was more difficult to remove this option from the input assumptions at current electricity prices. (especially since one of the advantages highlighted in the study is that substations are located close to the transformer stations of the distribution company).

Scenario 2 could well transfer the services to a private operator, from whom Termoenergetica would buy this thermal energy, without investment for the municipality and without the risk associated with the purchase.

There may be other options for scenario 2, but those at City Hall who received what you may have read above lacked imagination.

Implementing this solution for the whole city will cost about 1 billion euros, which is not bad, which is about the same as repairing the pipelines in the years to come. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro