Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CC Heat Recovery

CC Heat Recovery

Ratings: (0)|Views: 28 |Likes:
Published by navneetrai8

More info:

Published by: navneetrai8 on Jun 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Proceedings of Insert Conference Abbreviation:Insert Conference NameInsert Conference Date and Location
Paper Number Here
Combined Cycle Heat Recovery Optimization
A. Ragland, Vogt-NEMW. Stenzel- EPRIsolutions
The US electrical power industry has changed from a regulated business where utilities were virtually guaranteed a rateof retum to an unregulated business where the market sets the price. As with any unregulated business, the price of a serviceor supply is determined by supply and demand, and the seller must be competitive in order to meet its desired revenue target.Profitability will largely be determined by the business' overall operating efficiency. As the electricity supply businessbecomes more competitive, it becomes more important to optimize fuel selection and plant design to achieve competitiveelectricity prices while providing a satisfactory financial return for owners and other participants. Plant designs need to beadjusted to the specific project parameters to achieve optimum results. Fuel costs, yearly plant outputs, interest rates andother factors need to be considered when establishing plant designs. Four plant designs are compared using natural gas in thispaper. This paper will present a view of the cost benefits achieved through heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)optimization.The many possible business and technology scenarios, and site specific nature of each project makes it difficult, timeconsuming and costly to effectively optimize fuel selection, generating unit selection, efficiency, capital cost, and return oninvestment. Using computer tools is very important to properly handle these complex analyses. The use of the SOAPPCombustion Turbine Software as an analysis/decision support tool for optimizing combined cycle plants is described herein.
Achieving financial improvements requires proper analysis of many requirements and parameters. Changing one inputdesign parameter often results in modifications to other parameters. For example, changing the HRSG design changesefficiency, fuel cost, capital cost, debt financing, and emission rates. Often it is important to assess the impact of a range ofinputs in the analysis.Combustion turbine performance has the primary impact on combined cycle plant efficiency. The next most importantpiece of equipment that impacts efficiency is the heat recovery steam generator. The HRSG parameters to optimize includesteam pressures, temperatures, flows, pinch points, approach temperatures, and HRSG exit gas temperatures.
Figure 1 is a typical cycle for a single pressure HRSG. Multiple pressure HRSGs with duct firing and other capabilitiescan become much more complicated. This diagram shows the main gas, steam, and condensate flows, and the typical HRSGsurfaces and steam drums. Flue gas from the combustion turbine enters the HRSG and is reduced in temperature by thesuperheater, reheater, dram evaporative surfaces, and economizer before it enters the stack. Condensate from the combinedcycle condenser enters the deaerator, and flows through the economizer to the drum. Steam from the drum flows to thesuperheater and then to the high pressure turbine. Steam from the high pressure steam turbine flows through the reheater andthen to the intermediate pressure turbine.Pinch points and approach temperatures are important HRSG design parameters. Reducing these temperatures willincrease cycle efficiency. However, optimization involves fairly complicated heat transfer calculations and steam cycle heatbalances to avoid operational problems. Figure 2 provides a simple diagram showing pinch and approach temperatures:
Proceedings of 2000 International Joint Power Generation ConferenceMiami Beach, Florida, July 23-26, 2000
1Copyright (C) 2000 by ASME
- } Attemperator
o=-, fl :
Attemlc, er ator
IP ~eam
Reheat ". "
.-Colcl Reheat ~"."J
;": ..:
.~---d~ ~
~; ."~.....,- ' ;....
, =v'e,r~:tl.;,, ",.
.I L', ",'~." "=l,',l ~i
p To -k :
..... ..~y- ~, ;.~".: ..
I =.'~..'=|. "."...'°).:. ~ ...... "..",., . .. :....=~It~,."
i.:" "-~i! _~-'
H.P eo,er~')
;P~''!';:.~..... :':." ..:-.
":':;'~ t"'-::
.: :
" '
Figure 1: Basic HRSG Cycle
.. .. ,'.'..:~
.% r~l~-
..... ~'~ ".""-'--',...'d~. • :-.,,.; ......:,,
-'.~e~ ~ " ~4:.
'.'~ .-
.... ~',~:." .....
Ouilet ~
%';=Temp r ".~. "
To= I
. "-. ii;.;, "..¢" ...% ;)e~~~rheate~orator Eo0nomize. .... .. - ..). ~!:
Figure 2: Pinch and Approach Points
The HRSG design first begins with the combined cycle systems engineer employed by the either the owner or the EPC.The systems engineer begins with a desire to meet the plant's required net electrical output (MW) and heat rate (BTUs/MW).The first decision to be made is the choice of gas turbine size. As a general guideline, the gas turbine will represent 66%of the plant's electrical output assuming that the HRSG does not employ a duct burner. The remaining output will be suppliedby the steam turbine. For example, if the plant's requirement is 250 MW, then 165 MW would be supplied from the gasturbine and 85 MW would be supplied by the steam turbine. 60 Hz gas turbines currently available in the 165 MW classrange are the GE's Frame 7FA, Siemens Westinghouse's 501F, Siemens' V84.3A, and ABB's GT24.If it is desired that the steam turbine supply an additional percentage of the plant's output, this can be increased up to 50%if a duct bumer is addedA steam turbine that supplies 50% of the output to a combined cycle plant using one of theaforementioned gas turbines would increase the plant's overall output from 250 MW to 335 MW.With the plant's size and gas turbine choice made, the combined cycle systems engineer proceeds next to determine theplant's heat rate. This becomes a tradeoff between capital cost and efficiency. The lowest cost option would be a onepressure level, non reheat HRSG resulting in relatively poor heat rate. To obtain better heat rates with associated higher coststhe following ranking should be used:
2Copyright (C) 2000 by ASME
Costs HRSG Type Heat RateLow 1 Pressure Level, non reheat HighLow to medium 2 Pressure Levels, non reheat Med./HighMedium 3 Pressure Levels, non reheat MediumMedium to high 3 Pressure Levels, reheat Med./lowHigh 3 Pressure Levels, reheat LowOptimizing pinch point and approach temperatures follows the selection of the pressure level. Decreasing the pinch pointand approach temperature results in higher efficiency, but higher capital cost.
Most combined cycle optimizations should follow the steps summarized below:Determine the plant goals; e.g., the amount and value of the power, emission limits, fuel availability and costs,transmission requirements and/or limitations, forecasted generation load schedules, target electricity market priceand/or other requirements and goals.Identify new plant requirements for meeting the generation goals.Develop the initial design, operation parameters, capital costs, schedules and economics.Obtain the necessary equipment and construction bids.Select the best option(s) based on economics and other factors.Determining the generation and business goals is the most important first step because this will usually lead to theidentification of the most competitive plant configuration. Often, there is a tendency to begin these studies with a previousunit or a manufacturer's design to keep engineering costs low, or because of short schedules. However, this can lead to overlooking the best options for optimized efficiency and plant costs, which leads to higher financial returns.
The combined cycle plant options addressed in this paper are typical process steam supply and electrical generation cases.The selection of the performance, fuel cost, plant cost and economic parameters are based on a conservative approach. Actualproject values will probably differ considerably.Four cases are developed. Table 1 shows the common design inputs for the selected 4 cases.Table 1. Common Design InputUI' Model NumberNumber ot CT'sPerf P0mt Dry Bulb "l'emp - FPerI-Pomt Wet Bulb Temp - FCapacgy Factor - %Book Lilei'ax LileCommercial Operating YearBase YearCapital Costs Esc Rate - %/yro&M Costs Esc Rate - %/yr ..........Steam Price Esc Rate - %/yrPrunary Fuel Type / CostSecondary Puel Type / CostPrimary / Secondary Fuel Esc Rate' %/yr
GE PG7241(FA)-60 Hz
6657852020200219993.03.03.5Natural Gas / $2.8 US/MBtuNo. 2 Fuel Oil / $3.5 US/MBtu2.5
3Copyright (C) 2000 by ASME

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->