Wet Versus Dry Cooling Towers

CTI Educational Seminar

February 28, 2001
Jim Baker: We have several speakers today beginning with Mr. Tom Feely. Tom is the
Environmental and Water Resource Product Manager for the U.S. Department of
Energys National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In this capacity Tom is
responsible for developing any NETLs research program in air, water, or solid waste
related to fossil fuel power production. Tom is a qualified environmental professional
and has a Batchelor of Science degree in Environmental Science and a Masters degree in
Energy Resources.
Next we have Mr. Glenn Comisac with Baltimore Aircoil Company. Glenn has been
with Baltimore Aircoil/Ceramic since 1989 and is presently a Sales Manager, Industrial
Refrigeration. He has served in the capacities of Evaporative Condensers and Product
Manager. His professional endeavors are that of speaking engagements on the national
local level for ASHRAE, IAAR, RETA and CTI, serving on the National Board of
Directors for Refrigeration Engineers and Technicians Association. Glenn has a
Batchelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Lehi University and a MBA
in Finance from John Hopkins University.
Our third speaker is Mr. Jack Burns. Jack is the Director of Engineering of Burns
Engineering Services, a consulting firm he founded in 1998 specializing in the
improvement of utility cooling systems and technology of condensers in cooling towers.
Prior to that he spent twenty-four years as a consultant with Stone & Webster
Engineering Corporation specializing in condensers and cooling towers. Before joining
Stone & Webster in 1974, Mr. Burns was the Manager of Engineering Development for
the Condenser Division of Ingersoll-Rand a major condenser manufacture. As the
chairman of the ASME Condenser Test Code PTC12.2, he was instrumental in publishing
the national standard in September 1998. Mr. Burns is currently the chairman of the
ASME committee on Cooling Tower Testing, PTC23 and is an active member of the
ASME Board of Performance Test Codes. Jack contributes regularly to the literature and
was named an ASME Fellow in 1998 and is listed in the Whos Who in science and
engineering. He received a Batchelor of Science degree in Marine Engineering from the
New York Maritime College and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from
Lehigh University. Mr. Burns is a registered professional engineer in several states.
Leading off our speakers today is Wayne Micheletti. Wayne is an independent consultant
specializing in all aspects of industrial water and wastewater management from intake to
discharge. He has been working in this area for more than 25 years first as a Project
Engineer with Radian Corporation and then as an R&D Manager for EPRI and finally as
an independent consultant since 1991. Wayne has worked with clients in a number of
industries but has been most frequently involved with the electric power industry in the
United States and abroad. Wayne has Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees
in Chemical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. He is an active member
of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, The National Association of Corrosion
Engineers, and the Water Environment Federation.

Wayne Micheletti, Micheletti, Inc.: This morning we are going to review wet and dry
cooling, the advantages and disadvantages of each from a number of perspectives. As a
matter of fact we have a program that is designed to go through eight (8) steps. I am
going to provide a very brief and simple introductory background to wet and dry cooling.
Im also going to talk a little bit about the important factors in cooling systems selection
and design.
Jack Burns will take a more complex approach by getting into the thermodynamics of the
overall power cycle (particularly combined cycle operations), and then look at cooling
systems in the power industry. A lot of the wet and dry cooling aspects to be discussed
today are related to power plants. There is a good reason for this, and I will point them
out as we proceed. I will also talk about general power plant water requirements,
projections of the power industry growth and what this growth is going to mean in terms
of potential costs for new cooling systems.
Next, Glenn Comisac will present an overview of wet and dry systems not on such a
large scale as power plants, but on a smaller industrial scale. Finally, Tom Feely will talk
about the U.S. Department of Energys perspective, outlook and their involvement in wet
and dry cooling.
We are going to start by reviewing some relatively basic terminology. It is important
from the outset to define what is meant by wet and dry cooling in order to understand
some of the implications of wet and dry cooling.
Everyone in this room knows the primary difference between wet and dry cooling is that
a wet system evaporates water to provide cooling. This is critical to keep in mind because
it is the evaporative heat transfer aspect of wet cooling that makes it a better performing
system when compared to dry cooling.
Wet cooling systems can be classified in several ways, but probably the most common
classification is as once-through and recirculated. In a once-through system, cooling
water is brought in from a makeup source, passed through the heat exchange equipment
and then returned to the original source at a separate discharge point. There is no cooling
tower involved; any heat transfer from the process equipment to the environment is
accomplished either through diffusion of the hot cooling water in the colder receiving
water body and/or by enhanced surface evaporation. Although once-through systems
have low capital and operating costs, the trend in wet cooling through out most of U.S.
has been toward recirculated systems, which are commonly thought of as cooling towers.
When water availability is an important consideration (and it is becoming increasingly
important consideration) recirculated cooling is favored over once-through cooling. For a
recirculated system, the reduction in makeup water requirements can be as high as 95%
when compared with a once-through system. So recirculated cooling lowers the overall
water use rate on a gallons per minute (gpm) basis for heat rejection. Since much of what
Jack and I will be presenting is related to cooling systems used in the power plants, we
will be looking at water use from a gallons per minute per megawatt basis (gpm/MW).
For recirculated cooling systems, heat rejection to the environment is achieved in two
ways. Evaporation is the primary mechanism, which accounts for 65-85% of the total
heat rejection. In addition, there is convective heating of the air that passes through the

tower. We are all intimately familiar with how truly effective evaporative heat transfer
can be. When we work out we sweat, and when we sweat our body is cooled because the
water is evaporated from our skin. In that regard, you can imagine how much more
effective evaporative heat transfer is than convective heat transfer.
Wet recirculated cooling systems can also be classified in more detailed terms such as
natural draft or induced draft, crossflow or counterflow, and splash fill or film fill. For
each of these classifications, the key issue is air-water contact and its extremely important
influence on the performance of wet cooling systems.
A natural draft system relies on the difference in the density between the cold air entering
at the base and the warm air leaving at the top to achieve an adequate air-flow through
the tower. An induced draft system uses fans to pull the air through the tower. In the
power industry the movement has been toward mechanical, induced draft systems.
Although natural draft systems have been widely used at large power plants for years,
they have a tremendous initial capital cost.
Similarly film fill has been gradually replacing splash fill in counterflow cooling towers.
With splash fill, the water falling through the tower is broken into droplets that resemble
rain. With film fill, the water flows downward in thin layers (or films) along closely
spaced vertical surfaces.
In a power plant, the cooling system begins at the turbine flange outlet and includes all
the equipment beyond that point: the condenser, the cooling tower, and the cooling water
intake system and associated piping leading up to the cooling tower. In a well-designed
and well-operated power plant, the condenser/cooling system has an important role in the
generating capacity and efficiency of the plant. Steam condensation creates a vacuum at
the turbine outlet. This vacuum increases the steam velocity through the turbine and
increases the generating capacity and efficiency of the overall power plant. This vacuum
(which is frequently monitored and referred to as turbine backpressure) is an important
element that increases the overall power generation efficiency and is one way that many
power plants monitor their generating efficiency. Consequently, the cooling system has a
very important impact on the ability of a station to generate power efficiently.
What are some of the factors that affect the performance cost of a cooling tower? While
there are factors, the most important are: ambient air wet-bulb temperatures, airflow rate,
fill type, and water quality. The wet-bulb temperature defines the lowest temperature at
which evaporation can occur for specific ambient conditions (normally expressed in
terms of ambient dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity). So the wet bulb
temperature closely approximates the adiabatic saturation temperature and has a
tremendous impact on the performance of the tower. Airflow and fill type are important
because they directly influence the surface area and contact between the water and the
air. The makeup water quality and blowdown rate are also critical for the control of
scaling and other deposition problems in the condenser, which can lead to a loss of heat
transfer efficiency. Obviously, successful wet cooling system design and operation
depends upon our ability to control these factors. And the only factor beyond our direct
control is the ambient air wet-bulb temperature. Therefore, you have to design the tower
to accommodate a range of temperatures over different seasons.

Dry cooling does not imply the absence of water, but means heat rejection to the
atmosphere without the evaporation of water. When people are introduced to dry cooling
systems for the first time, this is a very important point to remember because they have
this image of a system with no water involved at all. Instead heat goes to the atmosphere,
the ultimate heat sink, without the evaporation of water. Think of your automobile
radiator; that is a dry cooling system even though it uses water. The water runs through
the engine block to the radiator where it is cooled and then back to the engine block. It is
a closed air-cooled system and a dry system. Because there is no evaporation in a dry
system, heat rejection or cooling is achieved by sensible heating of the ambient air from
condensing steam or hot water or whatever process fluid is involved. Here cooling does
not occur by evaporative heat transfer, but rather by sensible heat transfer.
There are usually two ways to classify dry cooling systems, indirect or direct. In this
example of an indirect air-cooled system, the steam from the turbine exhaust goes into a
spray condenser area, some of the hot condensate water from the condenser is run
through air-cooled, finned tube systems, and the cooled water is recirculated and sprayed
back into the condenser. It acts as a closed cooling loop. Sensible heat transfer of the
air that passes through the finned tube section accomplishes all of the cooling. At the
same time, some of the condensate is returned to the boiler to produce steam that again
goes through the turbine. As the name implies, indirect cooling uses an intermediate
fluid and in this case it is actually the condensate that goes back and fourth. For largescale applications such as power plants, indirect dry cooling is usually impractical
primarily because it has a much lower performance and much higher cost than either
direct dry cooling or wet cooling.
In direct cooling, the steam at the turbine flange outlet is sent to a main distribution
header at the top of an A-shaped air-cooled condenser. The steam condenses down
through finned tube piping; air is pulled up in the forced-draft system and blown across
the tubes to cool the steam. Condensate is collected in common bottom drains and run
back to the boiler. In this case you have no intermediate fluid such as condensate in the
prior example. Instead, the steam is cooled directly by the air; hence the terms direct aircooled and direct dry cooling.
Most direct dry cooling systems have the same basic design characteristics. A very largediameter, short length of steam duct runs from the turbine exhaust to the top of a finned
tube air-cooled condenser, usually in an A frame design to conserve space. Fans
beneath the A frame pull air from underneath and force it across the tube bundles. All
heat rejection is by sensible heat transfer, which again is inherently less efficient than
evaporative heat transfer.
Dry cooling has been used sparingly in power plants. The station that most people think
of for dry cooling in the power industry is the Wyodak Plant in Wyoming. It is a 330megawatt (MW) plant constructed in 1977. The Wyodak system has been operating
efficiently for a number of years. It was specially designed for dry cooling and uses a
special high backpressure turbine. This design takes into account the fact that dry
cooling is going to be inherently less efficient so the turbine is going to have to operate at
a higher backpressure to achieve the same generation capability. More recently there has
been a 640 MW cogeneration plant built in New Jersey. The dry cooling system occupies

2.5 acres of a seven-acre site and has 60 cells, 20 cells each for three different steam
turbine-generators.
I mention this as a way of introducing dry cooling, the size and the concept to those who
havent had a chance to see it.
What are the factors that might affect the performance of dry cooling? Again, there are
many, but three of the most important are ambient air dry-bulb temperature, air flow and
condenser surface area. Because dry cooling is a sensible heat transfer technology, the
dry-bulb temperature is an important concern. Sensible heat transfer also depends upon
the airflow and the condenser surface area. But within reasonable economic constraints,
these two factors can be adjusted. Only the ambient dry-bulb temperature is beyond our
direct control. In addition, the ambient dry-bulb temperatures vary over a much larger
range than ambient wet-bulb temperatures on both a daily and seasonal basis. This
makes the design and operation of dry cooling systems more complex than the traditional
recirculating wet cooling system.
Now must a cooling system be just wet or just dry? Is it all black or is it all white? No,
there are hybrid systems. Hybrid cooling systems combine elements of both wet & dry
cooling. Essentially, there are two types of hybrid cooling systems, depending upon their
purpose. They are designed either to control visible plumes that would normally be
emitted from wet cooling systems or they are designed to temporarily supplement for
some period of time the reduced performance that might occur for a dry cooling system.
So hybrid-cooling systems are designed to achieve either visible plume abatement or
supplemental cooling.
Hybrids that are used for visible plume abatement have an indirect dry cooling system
located immediately above a wet cooling tower. Hot cooling water is fed first into the
indirect dry cooling system at the top. This section is composed of air-cooled finned tube
heat exchangers. This water then passes down to the direct contact fill in the wet cooling
system. Ambient air is drawn through both systems in a parallel path. The two air
streams are mixed and exhausted together from the stack of the induced draft fan at the
top of the tower. The hot dry air coming from the dry segments mixes with the warm
saturated air from the wet sections to help control the visible plume. In the case of plume
abatement, water conservation is not a primary concern.
There is frequently confusion about the two types of hybrid cooling systems, particularly
when people mention plume abatement systems as being a water conservation system.
That is not the function of a plume abatement system; it is obviously used to reduce the
visibility of the plume. This is important in certain areas. For example, the Hudson
River Valley has many cooling towers and there are discussions about building more
cooling towers. The people in that valley are very sensitive to the aesthetic beauty of the
area. They may accept cooling towers that dont emit plumes because they consider
plumes to be unsightly. Plume abatement towers would be an option, not to conserve
water so much as to preserve the aesthetic appeal of the valley.
A hybrid system, however, that is used to supplement dry cooling, is really designed to
achieve the same sort of performance that could be obtained with a wet cooling system
but with water conservation as a primary objective. There is a hybrid wet/dry cooling
system in which the steam flow path is split. During normal operation most of the steam

would go over to the dry cooling system, to the condensate sump and back to the boiler.
But during hot times of the year or when the dry cooling system is not providing adequate
cooling so that increasing turbine backpressure effects the overall plant generation, the
wet cooling system will be run in parallel. At that pint, some of the steam is directed to a
traditional surface condenser and a wet cooling tower, which would provide the
necessary supplemental cooling to allow the turbine-generator and the power plant to
operate at the designed output. This is referred to by some as a parallel flow situation in
which the objective is to use dry cooling as much as possible and to supplement it with
wet cooling only when necessary. This hybrid system is obviously designed to be a water
conservation approach.
I think that establishes the background and terminology that will be used in these
discussions. Now I would like to review some factors in cooling systems selection and
design.
Why is there such an increased interest in cooling system alternatives? Why are we
talking about wet vs. dry cooling? Much of it has to do with the projected increase in
construction of new cooling towers, particularly in the electric power industry.
What is going on in the power industry? Some projections done by the Energy
Information Administration show that over the next 20 hears the power industry is going
to add approximately 300 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity. To put that in perspective,
that type of growth is equivalent to 600 new plants capable of generating 500 megawatts
each. That means 30 new 500-megawatt plants will be built every year. And that amount
of growth in power generation can translate into a lot of new cooling demand. As we will
discuss later, power plants can use a lot of water and a fairly large portion of that water is
associated with cooling.
Now of the projected 300 gigawatts, about 135 gigawatts or roughly half (47%) is
expected to be built as new combined cycle systems. Today, combined cycle plants
typically have two combustion turbine-generators followed by a single steam turbinegenerator, in an arrangement referred to as a two-on-one power block. The exhaust gas
from the combustion turbines is sent through a heat recovery steam generator (or boiler)
to produce steam for the steam turbine. In a 300-megawatt combined cycle plant,
roughly two thirds of the power or 200-megawatts are being generated by the upfront
combustion turbines, and one-third or 100 megawatts is being generated by the steam
turbine Since only the steam turbine portion will require cooling, a combined cycle
approach uses considerably less cooling water than a traditional fossil-fired plant in
which all of the power is produced with steam turbine-generators. But over a 20-year
period that still represents a large amount of new capacity that is going to require cooling.
Why not rely on the same cooling approaches that have been used in the past, wet
recirculated systems in most cases and wet once-through systems in some instances?
Because we have had a change in the number and the nature of both the key
environmental and economic factors that govern the selection and the design of new
cooling systems. What has traditionally been accepted as the basic mode of cooling is
now subject to replacement by some new cooling modes because of these changes and
factors. That is not to say that wet cooling towers are not a good idea or that wet cooling

tower technology is pass. It simply means there are now some factors in the selection
equation that enables other alternatives to be considered.
Lets talk about the environmental factors. One obviously is water availability and
quality. I think the importance of water was echoed several times by people making
presentations earlier through the technical papers. What was perceived 25 years ago as a
Western U.S. condition (every one knows that the West doesnt have a lot of water) is
now becoming more of a national issue. There is increasing competition for water
resources everywhere. Municipalities want the water, industries want the water and
environmental stakeholders want to preserve the water. So there is considerable
competition, pulling and pushing from an environmental perspective just on water quality
and quantity.
We all know that wastewater discharge limitations have increased. Use a wet cooling
system and there will be wastewater to discharge in the form of cooling tower blowdown.
That is a growing concern. In general, the power industry has had a fairly limited number
of effluent guideline parameters to meet from a wastewater discharge perspective. In the
past, the industry has been concerned with how much chlorine is in the discharge water,
if the pH is in particular range, and perhaps the levels of certain trace elements (such as
copper or zinc). Now there are other factors creeping into discharge permits, such as the
Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL). Regulatory agencies are looking at wastewater
discharges to and water quality variations throughout all or large portions of a defined
watershed. In doing so, they seek to determine the number and nature of all [point and
nonpoint discharges to a watershed as a means of calculating the allowable amount or
loading for each discharge in order to ensure a certain water quality throughout the
watershed. Consequently, industrial discharges (such as cooling tower blowdown) may
be limited to a certain percentage of some total amount considered acceptable for that
watershed. That becomes the TMDL. So TMDLs are becoming an issue. And are other
ways that environmental wastewater discharge regulations and permits are changing what
has been done in the past.
In a related environmental issue, how often do people link fish protection with cooling
towers? There are two ways to view this, the impacts of thermal discharge aspect and the
impacts of entrainment/impingement. Both of these issues are addressed in the Clean
Water Act under Sections 316(a) and 316(b), respectively.
It is not uncommon for power plants to discharge cooling water at temperatures higher
than the receiving water body and, sometimes, higher than might normally be allowed
under an environmental permit. However, Section 316(a) establishes a process in which
ecological studies can be performed to demonstrate that this thermal discharge over a
temporary period of time has minimal or no ecological impact on the immediate
environment. With a 316(a) variance, a plant may continue to discharge cooling system
water since it has been proven that the increased temperature does not have an
environmental impact. There are a number of plants with 316(a) variances, many of
which have once-through cooling systems.
Since power plant cooling systems may use large amounts of water, protection of aquatic
species at surface water intakes may also be an issue. The concerns are twofold: species
in their early life stages which become entrained in the water and pass through the

cooling system, and species in their later life stages that follow the current into the intake
and become impinged on debris screens. Section 316(b) states that cooling water intakes
must use the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental impact.
While this is a notable goal, interested parties have been arguing over the meaning of
adverse environmental impact for years. Some feel that the loss of a single fish
qualifies. Others feel that, through natural mechanisms, a certain portion of the
population can be removed (either by fishing, entrainment and impingement at cooling
water intakes or other means) and the population will compensate for these losses and
continue to thrive.
Interestingly, one of the most active parts of the country in the discussion of applicable
316(b) technologies is the Hudson River Valley. Not so long ago, fish entrainment and
impingement were not much of an issue because pollution from municipal and industrial
wastewater discharges limited the types and numbers of fish living in the river. However,
over the years a concerted effort to mitigate these discharges have restored the quality of
the Hudson River and resulted in the return and increase of many fish populations.
Consequently, plants that earlier had rarely seen much fish entrainment or impingement
began to record higher numbers during monitoring periods. In unusual cases, debris
screens could clog and collapse due to fish impingement at certain times of the year.
Obviously, this has become a more important issue from both environmental and
operational perspectives.
The question, then, for the Hudson River Valley and other surface water intakes, is
What is the best available technology? EPA proposed a 316(b) rule for best available
technology at new facilities in the late summer of 2000 that included many options; dry
cooling being one of those options. With dry cooling there is no makeup water demand,
so there is no cooling water intake and, in the view of some, no adverse environmental
impact. Several people have responded to that rule, both environmental stakeholders and
industrial stakeholders. This summer, EPA is scheduled to propose a second 316(b) rule
for best available technologies at existing facilities. At the moment, one option for best
available technology at existing plants may be retrofit to dry cooling. That means plants,
which currently have cooling towers, would have to change and install dry cooling.
Because there are a significant number of power plants, which currently have wet cooling
towers, such an option would have serious implications.
What are some of the other factors that would influence a plants choice of wet or dry
cooling?
Drift and plume aesthetics: Weve talked about a visible plume and that is sometimes a
concern, particularly if the towers are close enough to roads and other communities
where drift might cause icing during winter months. Drift deposition may also be
problem in nearby areas with sensitive vegetation.
Worker and community health and safety: This phrase almost always equates to
Legionnaires Disease and the continuing concerns about the presence of Legionella in
wet cooling systems. In dry cooling, Legionnaires Disease is certainly not a problem. In
wet cooling systems there is also the issue of using reclaimed water, which is treated
municipal sewage affluent. Workers may be concerned about what is in this reclaimed

water (even though it has been treated) and local communities may be concerned about
nearby drift deposition.
And for almost any industrial process, there is always the issue of noise. Both wet and
dry cooling towers have large-diameter fans that operated continuously to provide air.
Due to the lower heat transfer efficiency of dry cooling systems, air-cooled condensers
are much larger and use many more fans than a wet cooling tower designed for a
comparable heat rejection. Consequently, noise is usually more of a concern for dry
systems than wet systems. These are some of the environmental issues.
There are also economic factors. Once again, water availability and quality are at the top
of the list. As water availability decreases, its price increases. In siting new power
plants, I have actually worked with clients that go to locations for two reasons: 1) its
near a gas line so they can obtain natural gas easily; and 2) they can secure water rights at
that location. If they are unable to secure the water rights then that location is no longer
acceptable to them because it would mean dry cooling. So water availability and quality
are very important.
Wastewater discharge treatment: The more stringent the rules become, the more it is
going to cost to treat and discharge cooling tower blowdown. This may be a critical
disadvantage for wet cooling systems. Geographic location is an issue. Land availability
and cost can be particularly important since the air-cooled condenser used in dry cooling
systems requires significantly more area than a comparable wet cooling tower. There is
also the issue in geographic location of construction cost. Construction codes and costs
vary in different parts of the country. For instance everything seems to be expensive in
California, perhaps due to the number of codes and regulations (such as for earthquake
stability) and the costs of labor and materials.
Yet the issue that is possibly the most important from an economic perspective but
frequently gets overlooked or underestimated is system performance over variable
operating conditions. We talked earlier about wet cooling performance being tied very
closely to ambient air wet-bulb temperatures and dry cooling performance being tied to
ambient air dry-bulb temperatures. This has some very serious implications on the
cooling system performance and operating availability over a wide range of climatic
conditions.
Now, how do these environmental and economic factors translate into advantages or
disadvantages for wet and dry cooling systems? Undoubtedly, a key advantage of wet
cooling is the extensive industrial design and operating experience and history with these
systems. People have been working with wet cooling towers for decades. No one knows
better than this group here today the technological advances that have been made during
this time. Cooling towers also have relatively stable performance over variable ambient
operating conditions. For power plants this is particularly critical. Maintaining a low
steam turbine backpressure is essential for efficient, economic power generation. This
fact is being stressed even more today than in the past. When the power industry was
regulated and utilities had designated service territories, a company that operated
relatively efficiently and satisfied ratepayers and the public utility commission could
reasonably profitable. Now, deregulation is rapidly creating a national service territory

and is establishing competition that has certainly brought an increasing emphasis on

improved power plant performance.
Wet cooling towers also have a very good history of low capital as well as operating and
maintenance costs. This will be demonstrated, as we get further along in the seminar.
What are the advantages of dry cooling systems or, conversely, what are the
disadvantages of wet cooling systems? With dry cooling systems there are no makeup
water requirements and that can be important. People point to the Wyodak Plant as a
prime example of using dry cooling in a water-scarce region. This mine-mouth plant
could be sited at the source of the fuel even in the absence of water resources. The same
thing is true for other power plants in other countries. There is a huge power plant in
South Africa called the Matimba Plant sited right at where they mien the coal.
With dry cooling, there are no wastewater discharge concerns, too there is one less permit
to negotiate and one less set of compliance test programs to perform and track. With dry
cooling, thermal discharge concerns under Section 316(a) and fish protection issues under
Section 316(b) are minimized. There are no drift or plume problems and there are no
worker and community health and safety issues. In fact, there are several reasons that dry
cooling is being perceived as a reasonable alternative to wet cooling. And under certain
unique circumstances, there are probably good reasons to use dry cooling just as there are
good reasons to use wet cooling. That is what we want to talk about through the
remainder of this session.
Q. Tom Todd, Rexnord/Addax: I want to make sure that I had the figures right when
you spoke about the size of the market. You said that the Energy Information
Administration was projecting that over the next 20 years the power industry is going
to add approximately 300-gigawatts of new capacity. What is the current capacity?
Do you have any figures? Im just trying to get an idea of how much more it is
adding to the base already.
Micheletti: Tom Feeley, who is with the Department of Energy in the fossil power area,
says there are currently 300 gigawatts of coal-fire generating capacity, which
represents about 56% of the nations current total generating capacity. So we are
talking roughly 600 gigawatts of existing generating capacity.
Q. Gary Mirsky, Hamon Cooling Towers: How many parallel systems (air-cooled
condensers with cooling towers) are you aware of worldwide?
Micheletti: I have seen a list but I dont recall the numbers.
Jack Burns: I think there are about ten (10) parallel systems. You are talking about the
GEA parallel systems. There are about 10, and they are very small. The largest one
that I know of is about 40-45-megawatts. There is one (1) 180-megawatt down in
South America. It is A very limited technology and is in the embryonic stage of the
industry.
Q. Tom Reed, Niagara Blower Company: Particularly to that slide that paints a rosey
picture of the environmental effects of a dry cooler or dry condenser but what about
the added fuel consumption, added NOx, added capacity, you would need more power
plants because of the lack of production of a dry cooling system how does that
impact all of those statements?

Micheletti: The slide before speaks of performance. Wet cooling systems have a very
stable performance. So this would be a disadvantage for dry cooling systems, which
have a less stable and lower performance. We have some figures about overall
cooling system performance that will be presented after Jack speaks. But we have not
estimated the additional emissions that would be associated with the extra energy
capacity that would be needed to offset the energy performance penalties that would
result from the use of wet or dry cooling for projected new power plants.
Q.

Jim Stevens, Arizona Public Service: Do you have an example of a dry systems
typical condenser backpressure, what would be a typical heat rate, LP performance,
efficiency, etc.?

Micheletti: When we did some of our studies, we looked at backpressure ranges going
up to about 8 inches
Burns: I tested the dry cooler at Wyodak in 1979 and I recall that we ran the test at about
8 inches. That turbine was designed for 15-inch backpressure. It was a special
GE turbine that was going to be the wave of the future but of course it never
happened. The heat rate was not that great because the backpressure was pretty high.
The guarantee point was for 6 inches. Specific numbers I just cant give you of the
top of my head but you can guess that at 8 inches, it is not going to have a great
heat rate.
Jack Burns, Burns Engineering Services, Inc.: My objective is to talk about
thermodynamics in combined cycles. We have just heard that there is projection of
135,000-megawatts (135-gigawatts) of combined cycle electrical power to be installed in
the United States over the next 20 years. That is a lot of capacity; thats a lot of plants.
In order for you to appreciate and understand the cooling system and how it has to serve a
power plant you have to have an appreciation of the limitations and characteristics of the
low-pressure turbine that the cooling system is serving; and how the cooling system has
to interact with the turbine. Im going to outline the components of a combined cycle,
the thermodynamic cycle itself, some of the common definitions that are handy, the
general turbine characteristics, and at least give you one perspective on revenues.
We will be using a 750-megawatt (MW) plant as the basis because we have projected that
from the history of things, we are going to get to 750MW pretty fast and that appears to
be a typical size. As indicated earlier, there will be two combustion turbines and one
steam turbine. The 750MW plant then infers that the steam turbine would be 250MW
and that each of the combustion turbines would be 250MW. The plant would have a
compressor typically and a combustor where fuel is injected into the high-pressure air,
heated and then go through gas turbines turning the generator shafts. The exhaust gases
exit the gas turbine and go into something called the heat recovery steam generator
(HRSG) and to the stack. In the HRSG, feedwater is heated into high temperature steam
and goes into the high-pressure part of the steam turbine. Im sure that you have
recognized that I neglected to throw in the cold reheat line on this steam turbine. So Ill
correct that now by saying that the steam comes out of the high-pressure turbine. It will
go back into the HRSG so that the high-pressure turbine would have an expansion then a
reheating of the steam back into the HRSG and then go into the low-pressure turbine.
The reason that is done, first of all, is to get more work out of the same amount of steam.

Secondly, if there is a very large expansion of steam into the wet region of the steam
dome there would be a significant amount of moisture at the back-end of the turbine and
the blades would errode. With the steam cycle, steam enters the turbine-usually a
tandem compound turbine-and it strikes the blades, turning them and turning the shaft
that turns the generator, ultimately producing electricity.
Again, conceptually but in somewhat more detail we will be focusing on the steam cycle.
You can see that this is starting to approach a thermoynamic point of view. Heat comes
in from the HRSG from the gas turbine cycle, work is going out to the turbine generator,
and heat is being rejected from the steam turbine into a condenser after the energy of the
steam is spent. It is condensed and the condensate pumped back into the HRSG and the
cycle repeats. The heat removed by condensation is picked up by the cooling system and
then conveyed out to a cooling tower or the natural body of water that is around the
power plant.
Thermodynamics is a physical science that was developed in the middle of the 19th
century. It addresses the transformation of heat energy to mechanical power. There
were a number of scientists at that time that developed this science that we know as
thermo- dynamics. One of its foundations is the first law of thermodynamics, an
observation that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. That is a very simple
statement but it allows one to determine how much energy that can be added to a
substance and how much work will be created. What Ive shown is an application of that
first law in that the heat added by the HRSG along this line thermal dynamically. Im
plotting temperature vs. entropy. It is a temperature entropy plot of the same cycle as
before. Insert figure #1
The condenser has condensed steam from the turbine; its pumped up into the HRSG and
is a sub-cooled liquid at that point. Steam is then produced by the HRSG up to the
throttle condition of the turbine. There is an expansion of the steam through the turbine
back down into the wet cycle region of the steam dome where the cycle is repeated. This
expansion is not quite at constant entropy and if it were ideal it would be an isentropic
expansion; but there is some irreversibility to it so it has a slope to the side. It still ends
up at a low-pressure with a significant amount of moisture in the steam running between
5-12%.
The second law of thermal dynamics says that all the heat that is supplied to a heat engine
cant be utilized by that engine and there is turbine efficiency. Efficiency is the work of
the steam divided by the heat that is added to the steam. The work being electrical
generation in our case.
The utility industry has modified that second law to make it a very useful definition its
called heat rate. For those of you who are not familiar with that definition it is the
amount of heat added (BTUs per hour) for the amount of kilowatts produced. It
phonetically comes out to be BTUs per kilowatt-hour but it is really BTUs per hour per
kilowatt.
Mark Shaw, Black & Veatch: Isnt it a Temperature-entropy (TS) diagram and not an
enthalpy-entropy diagram? I was thinking on the condenser there is a huge enthalpy
change in the condenser and that shows the enthalpy being constant.

Burns: Yes, I guess you are right. As the steam condenses to the liquid state there
would be a tremendous enthalpy change so it would be a TS diagram. Good point. But
conceptually its the same sort of cycle because temperature and enthalpy go hand and
hand.
Some definitions that are of interest are: Gigawatt (GW) is a 1,000MW. Kilowatt (KW)
is 3413 BTUs per hour and that is based on using the joule constant to get from work to
BTUs. A brake horsepower is about of a kilowatt. A year is 8760 hours. The
capacity factor that is often mentioned is the actual plant generation over the rated plant
generation during some period of time. So you may have a capacity factor described that
would be last week, a capacity factor of the summer, a capacity factor of the plant
last year. Combined cycles have a very high capacity factor, probably over 90%.
Combined cycle units run all of the time particularly when natural gas is used. One of
the reasons these systems run is that the combined cycle combines the thermal efficiency
of both the gas side Brayton cycle and the steam side Rankine cycle. So you end up with
a combined thermal efficiency of perhaps 50-70%. That is almost double what you
would get from a typical Rankine reheat steam cycle.
Shown here, in more detail, the expansion of the steam from the turbine down to the
exhaust point and I just want to point out that this is at a low pressure, it is at least 5%
wet with the constant pressure lines in the saturated region sloped sharply to the right on
a Mollier chart. You can determine how much power the turbine is producing because
the turbine power is equal to the quantity of steam that flowed through the turbine times
the mechanical efficiency of the system times the enthalpy difference between the throttle
and the exhaust. Basically that is how the turbine work would be computed for every
expected enthalpy change. If your backpressure starts to go up the turbine exhaust,
enthalpy starts to climb. It never, however, gets above the saturation point.
Lets talk about the characteristics of a typical conceptual steam turbine for this 250MW
plant. It must understood, at least in terms of the cooling system, that there is a limit on
backpressure. The typical limit of an existing low-pressure turbine is about five inches
of mercury, absolute. That will vary though from manufacturer to manufacturer. In
new combined cycle plants there is more flexibility with the backpressure limit so that
can be as high as 8.5 inches HGA. The trouble is the higher the backpressure, the
greater the chance there will be instability in the last stage and there could be blade flutter
that would destroy the turbine. The manufacture doesnt want you to exceed that limit.
Five inches of HGA corresponds to 134F, the saturated steam temperature. Eight and
half inches will be about 155F. There is not a lot of difference between the two.
The steam turbine at the low end of the scale will choke between 1-1.5 inches HGA.
What this means is if the backpressure, that is, the condenser pressure, gets below a
pressure ratio of about half of the turbine stage pressure, because the flow is
compressible, Mach 1 occurs from the annulus of the turbine.
Even though the
condenser might drop even below that threshold pressure, it does not transmit the lower
pressure to the turbine and so it will be locked in to producing at one power level. The
turbine will not be able to take advantage of any lower pressures that occur at the
exhaust. But basically the turbine power is a function of the enthalpy changes between
its throttle and exhaust condition. As the backpressure increases the turbine power is
going to drop as a function of that enthalpy difference, everything else being constant,

same steam rate, same throttle enthalpy. This backpressure is at the same time a function
of the inlet water temperature to the condenser, how big the temperature rise is in the
condenser, what the terminal temperature difference is, how the inlet temperature to the
condenser varies as delivered by the particular cooling system, and ultimately the wet or
dry bulb temperature-assuming there is a recirculating wet cooling system.
Q. Frank Michell, American Electric Power: In addition to turbine concerns you could
have problems with the polishing system consuming demineralizer resins at the
higher temperatures.
Burns: That is a good point. That is another limitation. Polishing systems are used for
polishing, i.e. purifying the condensate so it can be utilized by the HRSG, the boiler and
steam turbine upstream. The polishing resins used have temperature limitations that can
be as low as 130F.
Michell: Our experience is when you get up around 150F and the chemists begin to
worry.
Burns: Let me point out one brief perspective on revenues. Using some of the
conversion factors that I mentioned earlier if you have the 250-megawatt steam turbine
plant and are able to sell power at $500/MWH it is not uncommon today. Operating for
one month at a 1.0 capacity factor, just the steam turbine portion of the plant alone has
made $91,000,000. That comes out to $125,000/hr of operation. This also explains
why when a utility owner has a problem with their cooling system, they want you now
because there is a tremendous loss of revenue when the cooling system goes down or
isnt functioning properly.
Now we will cover power plant cooling systems. Specifically Im going to review oncethrough systems, wet cooling systems, and dry systems to provide an overview with
respect to power. I will outline the components of each of these systems, the design
performance of the system, the influence of weather, some equations for the approximate
auxiliary power, approximate sizes and cost, and some of the environmental issues.
In a, once-through system cooling water is taken from a natural water body into an intake
and pumped through the condenser. The heat of condensation is picked up by the cooling
water and conveyed back to a discharge down stream, some distance away from the
intake. The pumping system is what is called the siphon circuit. The pressure in the
condenser and in the piping that leads to the condenser is not very high. The dravlic
pressures are just enough to overcome the frictional losses and in fact often the outlet
water box of the condenser is under quite a vacuum. That is a traditional once-through
type of system that isnt installed frequently anymore, but many remain.
The
components of a once-through system are: a turbine exhaust duct, a turbine bypass
(particularly important for a combined cycle unit), the condenser, i.e., heat exchanger on
the system, a steam jet air ejector or vacuum pump, circulating water pumps, pump
house, intake and the service water cooling system that provides cooling for the
generators and other miscellaneous uses around the plant. A once-through system has is
comprised of a number of components even though they are fairly simple.
The condenser is the only heat exchanger thats in a once through system. For a single
pass condenser temperature can be plotted versus the condenser tube length. The water

comes in at the inlet end, and is heated by the steam, which is at a higher temperature.
Its an isothermal type of condensation or least considered that way ideally. As the
cooling water goes through the tubes it gets heated. The Fourier Equation defines how
much heat is going through the tubes surfaces from the condensing steam into the cooling
water. A heat balance defines that that same heat must be conveyed into the cooling
water. It is exhibited by a temperature rise (TR) through the cooling water (the amount
of temperature change between the inlet and the outlet). Depending upon the quantity of
water flow the temperature rise will change.
The amount of steam that is being
condensed times its change in enthalpy as it goes from its wet steam condition down to a
liquid point is the heat input into the cooling water. The heat transfer resistances on the
waterside generally dominate the heat transfer. This resistance is the hydrodynamic
resistance of the water flowing through the tubes plus whatever fouling or scale deposit
there might be on the tube side. The steam side heat transfer is not a problem unless
there is a lot of excess air or there is a design problem with the condenser.
The condenser is sized using Heat Exchange Institute standards to determine how much
area is required for that condensation during the design phase. These standards can also
be used to evaluate condenser performance. Typically there will be a 15-20F of
temperature rise through the condenser. The condenser itself for a combined cycle unit
would have 6-10F terminal temperature difference.
That is, the outlet water
temperature would get within 6 of the steam temperature. It would be comprised of
maybe 150,000-200,000 GPM of water and as had been indicated, mostly be a siphon
circuit. The hydraulic system would not be pressurized. The tubes of such a once
through cooling system run from -1 inch with a wall thickness of 0.05 inches down
to .020 inches, of which the latter is very thin (25 BWG). They are generally shorter
then 45 feet so the condenser, fully tubed can be shipped by truck to the job site. The
project cost for such a system including, management cost, intakes, discharge, and
circulating water piping runs about $70-$100/GPM. It has two environmental issues.
The first is addressed by the Clean Water Acts 316(b), the impingement and entrainment
of fish, fish eggs and larvae at the inlet. When the intake flow velocity is only 1-3/ft per
second it relentlessly drags the small fish, etc. toward the intake screens. There are fish
protection provisions but they only effective on a certain percentage of the fish. The
Thermal Discharge (316(a)) part of the Clean Water Act is the other environmental issue
associated with the cooling system. The heated discharge can negatively effect the
aquatic environment downstream of the plant.
The recirculating wet cooling system improves some environmental conditions and is of
particular use if there is a shortage of water. Starting at the turbine-condenser flange, the
wet recirculating cooling system is comprised of a condenser with a circulating water
pump that is located at the basin of the cooling tower, a makeup system that has a small
intake from wherever the water is coming from, and a cooling tower with an induced
draft fan (typically, a counterflow cooling tower for the 250MW combined-cycle
application). The fan pulls cooling air in from the sides of the cooling tower and
discharges at a reasonably good velocity, maybe 30/ft per second through the top.
Again focusing on a 250MW steam turbine combined-cycle system, the components are
more extensive than they were for the once-through system. There is a turbine exhaust
duct, turbine bypass, condenser, steam jet air ejector, circulating water pumps (these

pumps now have to pump up to the cooling tower as well as through the condenser and so
are required to pump at a much higher pressure), pump house, piping, electrical services
for cooling tower itself, smaller intake and blowdown facilities, water treating facilities,
noise abatement, an access road, and an auxiliary cooling system.
When there is a simultaneous heat and mass transfer situation as in a cooling tower, the
heat transfer is given by the sensible temperature change of the gas and its humidity
change is given by the mass transfer, could be combined together using something called
a Lewis relationship (KaV / L). This is equal to the integral of T divided by the
difference in enthalpy from the hot water interface to the bulk air-condition.
Considering a droplet of water with an assumed hot water interface of saturated air in
intimate contact with that drop or sheet of water. That drop of water has an interfacial
enthalpy and a temperature interfacial, which is exactly equal to the hot water
temperature itself. Then the physics associated with the simultaneous heat and mass
transfer from the drop of water to the air can be calculated in accordance with the wellknown KaV/L expression. Employing a heat balance the amount of heat that is picked up
by the water, L is the water flow rate times its temperature change and that equals to, G
(the airflow rate) times its change in enthalpy. Similarly, the condensers, simple heat
transfer equatton you will remember was UA times the LMTD. That is also equal to the
amount of heat going through the tubing of a condenser and picked up by water, i.e., so
many gallons per minute times a temperature rise. Then move the terms that generally
describe the size of the condenser to one side of the equation and the performance of the
other youll have something very similar to the KaV over L term. That is to say if I take
and cross multiply by the GPM and put it on the bottom and cross multiply the LMTD to
the other side I have an expression that is quite similar. I have UA over GPM (GPM
being the same as L) on one side of the equation and all of the performance related terms
on the other: the temperature rise required by the cooling water and the LMTD of the
water. So there is a commonality here between what Merkel did in 1925 and the
standard Fourier Equation.
Q. Jim Stevens, Arizona Public Service: Clarifying the equation, there are terms in the
T on the right hand side and terms in the LMTD that can be divided out and
probably made simpler.
Burns: I dont doubt that it could be simpler but what I am trying to point out is that in
this case you have a temperature change with a change in enthalpy underneath it. Im
just trying to keep the same form between the condenser and wet cooling tower
expression. I could divide it out and make it simpler for the condenser but then you
would lose the correspondence with the cooling tower technology.
Q. Gary Mirsky, Hamon Cooling Towers: You showed a $500/MWH as the selling
price of a megawatt. What is the range on that today?
Burns: There have been instances where people have paid $4,000-$5,000/MWH for
some short period of time in the Midwest. I think in California they are running about
$500/MWH during their Class 3 (highdemand) conditions. That is what the utilities are
buying power for from other suppliers.

Mirsky: When you convert the $500 into dollars per kilowatt-hour you are talking about
$.50. Then we pay as a consumer like $.08-$.10. So when they are selling it at
$5,000/MWH then where are we going?
Burns: Well, California is going nowhere. The two major utilities that are there are
going bankrupt. They are buying at $500/MWH but they have limitation that they can
sell it for which I understand is a maximum of about $.30/KWH so they are losing
money.
Anonomous: That is why PG&E and Southern Cal Edison are facing bankruptcy. They
were forced to buy at a higher rate and forced to sell it at a lower rate by California
regulations. That was part of the deregulatory scheme.
Mirsky: So if the regulations change, obviously the consumer is going to get that passed
backed to them. Correct?
Burns: Absolutely.
Mirsky: You said something that a seawater tower might lend itself to a crossflow
design. There are as many film fill seawater towers in counterflow and also in splash
counterflow designs.
Burns: Yes, but the design depends on the degrees of wet bulb approach temperature.
Q. Mahendra Doshi, Psychrometric Systems, Inc.: Power plants, in order to do their
evaluation of increased increments of revenue per megawatts usually look at anywhere
from a $30-$50/MNH average. What you are talking about $5,000-$6,000/MWH is only
in a spot market for one, two or three days. Most of the power plants except for
California buy power on a long-term basis.
Burns: That is a very good comment. It is true, $30-$50/MWH would often be used in
the evaluation of a cooling system. Evaluations are getting more complicated, people are
starting to put durations into the equation. It used to be that you would use one number.
People are getting savvier in terms of ways of evaluation, also.
Q. Frank Michell, American Electric Power: I just want to second what Mahendra said
at least on the big coal fired units that run around the clock. Cost is way overstated.
My understanding is that you were talking more about a peaking unit or a unit that is
built to capture the peak market. If so then maybe the number is more realistic. I
cant share the economics with you but I can tell you that when we run numbers we
dont use numbers that high. There are peak periods that it can get that high and
maybe even higher. If you look at the average during the summer or winter months
it is quite a bit lower.
Burns: I only used that to illustrate that there is an awful lot of money generated by a
plant; and how important it is for the cooling system to be in sync with the rest of the
plant. Yes, $30-$50/MWH is what normally would be used for long-term evaluations.
Though I might say that I am illustrating the potential revenues used by a combined cycle
plant and one that is a merchant plant. The people would tend to use a pretty high
number.
Michell: In a regulated market, which a lot of us still operate under, depending on the
deal we have with a given state that cost is passed along to the customer in terms of fuel

adjustment clause. In an unregulated market it is a whole different ball game. So in

some respect some of our customers are paying for these peak prices, they just dont
realize it because its not around the clock, rather it is spread out over a period of time.
A lot of the utilities are getting compensated for these higher prices around the country.
Q. Anonymous: I just wanted to bolster your argument again. A power plant that is
limited by a condenser is usually brought up on a sudden basis, it's not planned. At
that point the utility must buy power from somewhere else. Typically that will be on
the market of $500/MWH. True the regulated price is down $30-$50 but if a power
plant is limited by something unplanned then that cost is calculated at the $500 range.
To return to the technical discussion, that is the basis of determining the size of a wet
cooling system. Hardly anyone does the integration (manually) any more. Most people
use the CTI BlueBook or the new ToolKit (BlueBook software) to evaluate the tower
characteristic condition. This gives you what is required by the wet cooling tower.
They will also use published data to determine what fan pressure losses will be and the
heat transfer capability. This will determine the crossing point and where the cooling
tower will operate. Let me be a little more specific. In the CTI BlueBook there is a plot
at a particular wet bulb temperature and a particular range. There is a family of curves
with different approaches to the wet bulb temperature plotted as a function of KaV/L over
L/G. L/G being liquid to gas, water to air. Typically a cooling tower operates some
place in the middle with maybe an 8F approach if it is a modern counterflow mechanical
draft-cooling tower. That seems to be an economical point. It gives just enough airflow
to get a good design, it gives you a nice low TTD, which is needed because you want a
low condenser pressure; to reiterate, the lower the backpressure of the turbine, the more
work you will get out of the turbine. Usually the design point is selected for a very high
wet bulb, the highest anyone would see during the course of the year. You want to be
sure you have enough turbine power production capability then because that usually
coincides with the peak demand period for the utilities.
Also in the CTI Journal (Vol. 9, No. 2) there was a set of curves used in one of the
articles (TP88-05) that show some test data of the characteristics of film fill that was
tested. KaV/L vs. L/G and also some pressure loss data was included in that same
article. What happens and where the cooling tower actually operates is a somewhat like
a pump curve. The cooling tower characteristic is analogous to the system resistance of
a pump curve and the fill performance data, such as for a particular depth of a particular
fill of a counterflow tower. The latter will cross the characteristic curve and where the
two curves cross is the operating point for the cooling tower (or should be).
Same loose ends: The tower performance tests are based on getting back to the operating
point. You can always get a fan that will give you the proper pressure head to overcome
all the pressure losses in the system. By considering various angles of the attack of the
blading for different flow rates in air, an estimate is made of the brake horsepower too.
One needs to use a psychometric chart if you really want to make the integration. This is
a plot of enthalpy vs. wet bulb temperature and humidity. It is a useful piece of
information. (See attached slide).
If you put all of these things together consider a wet recirculating cooling system of a
cooling tower and a condenser. Further consider the air comes in at an 80F wet bulb

temperature, goes up through the cooling tower and is exhausted at some level between
those two temperatures. This could be the basis of a plot of the temperature of the hot
water coming from the condenser back to the cooling tower and falling into the cooling
tower basin. That air will approach the cold-water temperature from the cooling tower.
It will be pumped back into the condenser where its temperature will increase some 24F
(in this case for instance) before it makes the loop out of the condenser and it returns
back to the cooling tower. The hot cooling water will have an approach of about 6F to
the steam temperature.
You can calculate then, the saturation steam temperature
beginning with an 80F inlet wet bulb temperature; an 8F approach to the wet bulb
temperature for this particular cooling tower example, and a 24F range for the
circulating water system with a 6F approach to the steam temperature. Look up the
corresponding backpressure that relates to that steam temperature then go into the turbine
response curve and determine the associated generation. That is what one would do to
evaluate a complete cooling system.
Recirculation is the amount of air from the exhaust plume that is ingested into the cooling
tower. There is about a 1-2F effect, normally, of recirculation presuming the tower was
oriented properly with respect to the prevailing winds and the wind isnt blowing too
hard. That is, there will be an artificial rise in the ambient wet bulb temperature entering
the tower if there is any wind. At an 80F wet bulb temperature, it is typical to have an
8F approach-cooling tower and typical to have a 24F range on a wet recirculating
cooling system so you may end up with 3 to 4 inches of mercury (in HGA) absolute
backpressure at the exhaust of the turbine. This same cooling tower at a 30F wet bulb,
because there is not as much moisture (or enthalpy) in the air, would exhibit an approach
increase to 30F but the ambient temperature level is lower so you may end up with about
a 1 inch HGA backpressure on the turbine. That is a lower backpressure, a higher
enthalpy change across the turbine, hence more work is done and neglecting increased
leaving losses you may make another 20MWs. You can get weather data, at least for
the design condition, from various tables that exist. The duration percentiles shown in
many of these tables will be in percentages of the warm weather months; the 1% level is
usually used for design.
The auxiliary power estimates are made from determining what the horsepower is
required to run the fans and the pumps for a wet system. The fan power is estimated
from the total pressure change of the air through the system. A basic equation is used to
convert that pressure change and flow to kilowatts. Notice that the correct version of the
formula estimates motor input kilowatts.
As far as the circulation water pumps are concerned normally, there may be at least a 50
ft. pump head required because they have to circulate flow through the condenser,
cooling tower, piping and the basin intakes so you end up with another equation for the
kilowatts. The pump and fan auxiliary load may be a fairly large number but usually it
does not equal the total fan kilowatts required for the operation of a dry cooling tower.
There are three kinds of design optimizations for wet cooling systems. One is balancing
the engineering, cost, and cooling system performance levels against the turbine revenues
and picking the best one for the particular economic conditions of the time. Next, is to
select the best performing, practical sized cooling system and third is to optimize with a
lowest cooling system cost capital selection. I rarely see any of this done today. There

just isnt enough time in a project to do it. You just basically start with a standard
condition, say for example 24F range, 8F approach and go with that. The cooling
system design optimization is a very large study that architect-engineers formerly
conducted. It took maybe a 1-2 months with 2-3 people working to get it accomplished.
The typical range on a wet cooling system will run between 20-30F range, with an 8F
approach.
It could be a 10F or 6F approach depending on what the wet bulb
temperature and how stringent the design performance of the condenser is. Usually the
wet cooling system has a lesser number of GPM (120,000 -160,000) and the circulating
system is fully pressurized. The counterflow-cooling tower will have 4-7 GPM of
cooling water flow per square ft of plan area and it may be 40 feet to the fan deck. The
total project cost may be $150-$190/GPM-much more than a once through system.
Environmentally, a wet cooling tower produces about a 98% mitigation of the intake and
discharge thermal plume effects. Though these aquatic impacts have been traded for
some airborne effects, namely a plume that often projects a dynamic industrial site to
observers. Plumes may also cause fogging and icing, there may be noise issues and there
is a loss of electrical production capability compared to a once-through system that must
be compensated for by an addition plant in some other place. Further, the wet system
uses a fresh water resource for evaporation. The drift is sometimes an environmental
issue. If the cooling tower is using wastewater there might be some health concerns in
terms of the local populace that need to be addressed.
Still focusing on a 250MW steam turbine for a combined cycle plant, schematically the
dry systems starts at the turbine exhaust. I will focus basically on a direct air-cooled
condenser of the mechanical draft variety because that is what is being used in this
country for dry cooling. The indirect system, to my knowledge, has never been used in
this country for the dry cooling of a power plants main cooling system.
The dry cooling tower starts at the turbine flange; the steam conveyed by a duct that runs
from the turbine up to the tower and along the top of the usual A-frame cooler. The
angle is somewhere between 45-60. A fan forces the air through the tube bundle, which
is either a few rows of tubes with fins or some type of hollow extended surface. The
condensate is collected in headers at the bottom and is then pumped back into the thermodynamic cycle. There is also a steam jet air ejector, an air vapor removal system, and so
forth in the system as well. As mentioned before, dry cooling heat transfer performance
is keyed to the dry bulb temperature. That is the dry bulb is what is important in this
case. Another performance aspect though is that from the forced-draft fan, the air enters
the tube bundle with a fair amount of velocity. Since it has to spread itself out over the
entire tube bundle, it exhausts with a much slower velocity than a wet cooling tower.
This makes it more subject to recirculation effects. Because the wind can pick up that
low exit velocity much quicker and sling it around into the tower intake. The direct aircooled condenser entering air may potentially be much warmer than the ambient and
destroy the performance of the fans. Another aspect of these 250MW combined cycles
is that the towers are enormous. To minimize recirculation effects and to get enough air
underneath, the elevation of the top of the duct can be perhaps the highest point in the
plant. It might be a 110-115 feet high and it may be considered an eyesore.

The components of a dry cooling system are fewer than the wet recirculating system.
There is a turbine exhaust duct, turbine bypass, air cooled condenser, steam jet air ejector
(SJAE), piping, tower electrical service, a control system and DCS, separate hot well,
noise abatement, an access road, and an indirect dry auxiliary cooling system.
The performance of a dry cooling system is basically given by the same Fourier Equation
as used for the steam condenser.
There is a slight drop in steam temperature to
compensate for some of the pressure losses that occur in the duct of the turbine itself.
The pressure loss is an isothermal condensation process but there is a relatively
appreciable steam pressure drop from the turbine annulus up to the cooling tower.
Similar to once-through condensing, the air at the fan is like the circulating water flow: 1,
It heats as it goes through the cooling tower, and when the air leaves it is at the
temperature lower than the steam by a terminal temperature difference and 2, In each cell
the airflow times the specific heat of the air times the temperature rise is the amount heat
that that particular cell picks up. The heat of condensation of the steam is about the
same as it was for a wet condenser, namely that there is a difference in enthalpy as it
exhaust from the turbine less the liquid enthalpy, all multiplied by the quantity of steam.
There are other heater discharges that may also enter the dry tower and there are dumps
and drains but they are not that large. The airside resistances in this case dominate the
heat transfer because the air isnt whipping by the fins at 50 ft. per second-or one could
not afford the power. (To be factions, there wouldnt be any power left to sell to
anyone.) So the air goes through the tube bundle at a much lower velocity. As a result
of that the heat transfer situation is worse on the outside of the tubes; that is why there is
an extended finned surface provided on a dry cooling tower.
As indicated, recirculation is a concern with a dry cooling system because the air comes
out of the A-frame with a much lower velocity than a wet system. Thus, the wind has a
greater opportunity to affect it as it drifts out of the top of the dry cooling tower to blow it
back into bottom of the same inlet tower. Installing high and wind walls around the
tower help in reducing the recirculation. Ive said that there is usually a 2-4F effect
but it could be much larger than that. In the case of a dry cooling system usually the
summer power demand, at least in the U.S., peaks with the high dry bulb temperature.
Summer dry bulb temperatures can be 20F hotter that the wet bulb temperatures. That
puts you higher up on the scale with a dry tower in terms of trying to maintain the fairly
low backpressure so necessary for proper turbine operation. During cold weather, since
a wet cooling tower increases in temperature approach, you may get a reasonably
comparative performance from a dry cooling system.
That is, the dry tower will
essentially maintain its design approach to the dry bulb temperature as the seasons get
colder and colder, whereas the wet cooling towers approach starts to increase. For
instance, a dry tower may have a performance advantage over a wet cooling tower when
there is a 45F dry bulb temperature and a 40F wet bulb temperature. I think you have
to be careful not to use that cold weather advantage however for the 12 months of the
year or you will get a lopsided, unrealistic view. You have to use a weighted duration
type of estimate for detailed evaluations. The weather data can be obtained from
engineering tables or the web to make that determination.
As noted, when the dry bulb is high there is the risk of a power de-rating on the turbine.
This will occur in hot weather. De-rating is exacerbated by the high recirculation and

the poor inherent thermal performance of a dry air cooler. When a de-rate occurs, the
reduction in station generation is appreciable, much more so than just a simple proportion
with hot weather. It is more likely with dry cooling. Admittedly de-rating can and has
happened with wet cooling systems. But normally with wet cooling, the wet bulb
temperature is so much lower in the U.S. there is probably something wrong with one of
the components of the cooling system that is negatively affecting performance.
Design sizing optimization of a dry cooling system is more limited because the design is
really comprised of more standard elements and one can either develop a low capital cost
selection or one that is performance oriented. The major parameters of the performance
are the ITD, i.e., the approach of the steam temperature to the dry bulb temperature, and
the amount of airflow. A typical dry air-cooled condenser design has a 45-65F ITD.
Our 250MW combined cycle plant plan area would be about 250ft x 250ft or 1 acres,
have a maximum elevation of 100+ feet, approximately 35-45 fans pulling between 130150KW each, and there would be a large auxiliary cooling system. The project cost
related in this case would be approximately $25-$45/per 1000 BTUs/hr of heat load.
As far as the environment is concerned, a dry cooling system has its pros and cons.
There are no fish kills, no airborne plume effects, no visibility problems, no fogging or
icing, but there are noise impacts. There will be a relatively large summer loss of
electrical capacity that must be compensated for and supplied by additional facilities
elsewhere. It is relatively costly cooling tower, complicated to operate and is enormous
in size and height often creating a negative visual effect.
Q. ????? - and Associates: The gas compression companies often use evaporate air
coolers in front of air-cooled heat exchangers to take care of the peak summer
conditions. Have you looked at the economics of doing that for dry condensing in
air-cooled heat exchangers on large power plants?
Burns: No. It does help but I havent looked at it. Today we are talking of an
overview not the subtleties. Certainly it is used if there is an opportunity for it.
Q. Mirsky: You mentioned noise relative to the air-cooled condensers and showed the
Linden Co-Gen Plant. On one side of it is the TOSCO Refinery and the New Jersey
Turnpike on the other, so it is a highly traveled, and a very noise area. Do you know
anything about the noise requirement or for that condenser? Was it tested?
Burns: No, I dont. It would have to have a fairly high background noise so maybe it
wouldnt be as stringent as an ordinary air-cooled condenser. I really dont know.
Q. Mirsky: Can you speak a little to the topic of noise, how is it regulated, and is there a
standard noise level that has to be met?
Burns: There are standard noise levels. They are fairly stringent and usually if there are
residences within 2,500 ft. the plant will have difficulty meeting the local noise
requirements. With respect to the air coolers and the many fans that they have, one of
the techniques to mitigate the noise would be to use low noise fans and low speed fans.
But there is still a significant amount of noise and something that I understand is
becoming of more concern to people in the local community when you try to site a
cooling tower in that area.

Q.

Dave Hutton, Baltimore Aircoil Company: One comment, when you were
comparing systems, an additional system that is available is and may not be a
appropriate for the 250MW size would be using an evaporative steam condenser.
That combines the concept of the air-cooled and water-cooled systems by putting the
steam condenser in the cooling tower in essence and the steam is condensed in a tube
bundle where evaporative cooling takes place on the outside of the tubes. Operation
in sizes up to at least 55MW have cost savings and especially energy cost savings
compared to water-cooled systems and especially compared to dry air-cooled
systems.

Q. ???? Kiser, Europe ?????: I was curious about one thing on the dry cooling systems.
A few years back in a previous job I put some dry air coolers on a small CHP plant
for a ceramics factory in Italy and there were problems with fouling the coils from the
outside with particles being brought onto the coils. They were always cleaning those
coils. That gave them performance problems. Is it an issue with the size of aircooled condensers on power plants?
Burns: It is an issue. It could be a seasonable one. There is usually pollen, cottonseed,
salt drip, etc. that can end up on the extended surfaces. They normally are bought with
some kind of in place cleaning system, at a higher cost of course, and can be rather
elaborate.
Q. Tom Reed, Niagara Blower Company: I would also like to point out that it doesnt
have to be an all or nothing wet or dry type system. We have been involved in a lot
of plants with dry condensers and then wetted evaporative coolers for the auxiliary
water-cooling, specifically when cold water is critical to the performance of a
generator. Obviously the water consumption plume and everything is fractional
compared to that of a steam condenser, 4-10%. The water makeup for these units
can come from various sources such as blowdown from the boiler, or discharge, an
effluent from local municipalities.
Q. John Hermon, J.L. Hermon & Associates: There is a phenomena that can develop
inside dry steam condensers and impact the pressure drop during the wintertime.
When evaluating one of these in a freezing climate how do you do an annualized
pressure drop or do you assume they are able to de-ice the steam condensers on an on
going bases? It is a phenomena that exists.
Burns: That is another complexity of its operation. I dont think that the government
agencies have address that. It is a complexity that occurs. A lot of the larger, newer
extended surfaces dont have the same problem difficulty initially that occured with
multiple rows of finned air cooled tube exchangers that had ice that would form in the
lower section of a tube for example at Wyodak they had lost a lot of tubes during the first
winter of operation. GEA had an elliptical shaped tube so that when it did freeze it
would expand so you had another couple of shots of freezing before it would burst. It is
a big problem but very hard to quantify that problem. One thing the operators might
often did was to run, not at the lowest backpressure, but at a level that gave them a
comfortable feeling that they are not going to freeze the tube bundle.
Q. Paul Lindahl, Marley Cooling Tower: One thing that struck me when you were
talking about wet vs. dry and talking about the air plume and thermal plume on the

wet side and the discharge into rivers and streams; there is a tendency in the business
relative to wet/dry towers, to talk about plume being visible or not visible. With the
implication that there is no plume when you cant see it but that is not so. There is a
thermal plume on the airside that exists for a wet tower or a wet/dry tower whether
you can see it or not. It occurred to me when you were talking about recirculation on
air-cooled condensers that there is a significant thermal plume connected with those
that might be of interest to someone who lived near by one of those units. It can be
pretty significant on the local weather.
Burns: And of course any birds flying over might have trouble navigating thermal
plume!
Wayne Micheletti: Weve been talking primarily about the utility industry and Im going
to close out the utility segment of this seminar with a discussion of some economics that
were completed for the Utility Water Act Group. UWAG was interested in the economic
implications of using wet cooling or dry cooling in new combined cycle power plants if
required by Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
There are other reasons to use dry cooling, one of the most important being limited water
availability. I touched on that earlier when I mentioned the Wyodak Plant, which is the
first large dry cooled facility in the U.S. power industry.
Depending upon the data source, U.S. industries can be ranked according to total water
use. In almost every list, agriculture is the biggest industrial user of water in the U.S.,
although not by much. The utility industry is very close behind with an approximate
daily use of 277 billion gallons (according to one source). The next largest user of water
is public and domestic systems at 20 billion gpd with five other industrial/commercial
categories using between 2.3 and 9.2 billion gpd each.
The power industry has always been a focus for water and wastewater environmental
regulations because of the tremendous amount of water that it uses. But how is that water
used? In traditional fossil and nuclear plants, main steam condenser cooling and some
auxiliary heat exchangers account for most of the water used. As previously mentioned,
the auxiliary cooling represents a very small portion of the total, a good rule-of thumb
being 5%. Although it is a small portion it is not an insignificant portion because one of
the main elements of auxiliary cooling in a power plant are the turbine lube oil coolers.
The temperature of the turbine lube oil coolers must be maintained at a specific point to
meet the turbine manufacturers specifications. This means having cold water to keep the
turbine lube oil at those temperatures or the warranty will be violated. Other power plant
water requirements are boiler makeup, ash transport for handling fly and/or bottom ash,
flue gas scrubbing, water injection for NOx control, power augmentation in many of the
gas-fired units that are humidifying and cooling air prior to the combustion turbines, and
a number of miscellaneous wash downs. Without a doubt the biggest water user in most
power plants is the wet cooling systems and most of it is in steam condenser cooling For
that reason, in water-scarce situations the wet/dry cooling issue has been around for a
long time.
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, UWAG was very interested in assessing the economic
implications of a potential Section 316(b) that would define dry cooling as the best
available technology for new facilities and, thereby eliminate the continued use of

traditional wet recirculated cooling water systems. To make such an economic

assessment, Jack Burns and I estimated the relevant cooling system costs for a generic
bas-case combined cycle power plant at five different U.S. locations. The generic
combined cycle plant had a 750MW generating capacity, consisting of two front-end
250MW gas turbines followed by one 250MW steam turbine generator driven by the
steam produced in a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). Recognizing that every site
is going to be different, we had to devise some way to prepare an estimate that could be
confidently extrapolated over a broader range. To do so, we fixed all plant design
characteristics (including the steam turbine-generator response curve) and selected sites
with varying climatic conditions that still were somewhat representative of the
geographic regions for which the Energy Information Administration had compiled
capacity growth projections. We looked at all the major direct and indirect costs
elements. We also looked at operating and maintenance costs assuming these plants
would have a 20-year operating life span. We used that 20-year basis to calculate
numbers with regard to the anticipated lifetime costs for maintenance labor, materials,
system auxiliary power and (a very key element) the energy penalties.
Some of the design parameters for the base-case wet cooling system were: a cooling
tower with an approach of 8F, a range of 24F, evaporation of 70% roughly over the
annual period, and operation at five (5) cycles of concentration. We used regional means
for the wet-bulb temperatures and a wet bulb correction factor of 2F. For auxiliary
cooling, we assumed it would be wet cooling as well and increased the main cooling
system by 5% to account for this.
The design parameters for the base-case dry cooling system included an ITD at 54F, and
regional means for the dry-bulb temperatures, and a dry-bulb correction factor of 3F.
For auxiliary cooling things begin to get a little complicated. In a wet cooling system,
cooling water for the turbine lube oil cooler and other auxiliary heat exchangers. In a
direct dry cooling system, there is no cooling water. As a result, there must be either a
separate wet cooling system on a small helper tower or some other means such as fin-fan
coolers We assumed there would be a separate indirect-dry cooling system so we could
also assume there would be absolutely no cooling water makeup. We figured the cost
and associated auxiliary power of this indirect-dry cooling system on the same 5% basis
used for the wet cooling system.
We presented the erected total capital costs estimates in mid-1999 dollars. Again, the
costs are for a 250MW steam turbine condenser, a third of the total base-case combined
cycle system capacity. We included low-noise fans for both wet and dry cooling systems,
assuming that is what the regulations would require. The condenser is a separate line
item in the wet cooling system, but not in the direct-dry system, which has no traditional
steam condenser. As already mentioned, the cost of auxiliary cooling was figured as a
certain percentage of the cost for the main cooling. There are also some system
miscellaneous costs. For the wet cooling system, miscellaneous costs include cooling
water pumps and piping, and an intake. For the dry system, these costs include a tube
wet-down and cleaning system, special controls for winter operations, insulation and
some heat tracing. There are also general miscellaneous costs, such as site preparation,
access roads, fire and lightening protection, painting, acceptance testing and all of the
tings that go into the construction and startup of a cooling system.

The footprint for the wet tower was estimated to be 325 ft x 85 ft and about 55 ft high.
That is roughly one acre for 12 cells in a back-to-back configuration, each cell using a
30-ft diameter fan. For the dry cooling tower (or air-cooled condenser) the estimated
dimensions are 250 ft x 250 ft, and about 105 ft high. The dry tower had 40 cells;
meaning 40 fans each with a 30-ft diameter.
The bottom line capital costs, after including some indirect factors, for the base case plant
is about $25M with wet cooling and about $60M with dry cooling.
Estimated Capital Cost Details
(Albany, NY)
Erected Capital Costs ($ Millions)
Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Item
Cooling Tower

6.64

28.06

Fans

2.58

11.64

Condenser

6.05

Auxiliary Cooling

0.89

2.13

System Miscellaneous

2.19

1.58

General Miscellaneous

0.98

1.02

18.63

44.43

Indirect factors

6.52

15.55

Total

25.15

59.98

Total Direct Costs

To examine the influence of different ambient wet-bulb and dry-bulb temperatures on

cooling system capital costs, we selected five locations: Albany, NY; Madison, WI;
Atlanta, GA; Amarillo, TX; and Sacramento, CA. Although you will see some variation
in the estimated capital costs, that variation doesnt reflect meteorological differences.
What this variation truly reflects is the differences in constructions costs (regulations,
codes, labor and materials) from site to site, demonstrating that it is more expensive to
build something in California than in Texas. And even then, there werent significant
differences in the capital costs for either the wet or dry system as a function of
geographic location.
Estimated Cooling System
Capital Costs for Base Case
Base Case Site

Capital Costs ($ Millions)

Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Albany, NY

25.2

60.0

Madison, WI

25.4

60.7

Atlanta, GA

23.2

56.2

Amarillo, TX

21.3

52.1

Sacramento, CA

28.0

66.0

Now lets review the estimated operating and maintenance (O&M) costs. We estimated
the annual maintenance labor and equipment to be roughly 1% of the capital cost and
extrapolated that amount over a 20-year life. For auxiliary power, we considered the
cooling tower fans and the cooling water pumps for the wet cooling system and just the
air-cooled condenser fans for the dry cooling system. To determine the annual auxiliary
power costs, we assumed a 90% plant operating factor and a self-charge electricity price
of $25/MW-hr. When examining the estimated O&M costs for the five different sites two
points should be noted. First, wet cooling is less expensive than dry cooling. This is really
due to two factors: one element of the total O&M costs is based on a percentage of the
total system direct capital cost (and the dry system is more expensive than the wet
system), and, although a wet system requires electricity for both fans and pumps, the fact
that a dry system has so many more fans results in a greater overall electricity demand.
Second, there are only minor site-to-site variations in estimated O&M costs.
Estimated Cooling System
O&M Costs for Base Case
Base Case Site

O&M Costs ($ Millions)

Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Albany, NY

0.94

1.82

Madison, WI

0.94

1.83

Atlanta, GA

0.92

1.78

Amarillo, TX

0.90

1.74

Sacramento, CA

0.96

1.88

The reason for this second point can be attributed to the absence of energy penalty costs.
The reason we didnt include those cost are because we didnt know what price of
electricity would be when the energy penalty occurred. However, we did calculate what
that penalty would be in terms of the estimated maximum cooling system energy penalty.
As I described earlier, the base-case steam turbine-generator is designed to operate over a
range of backpressures. The lowest backpressure usually represents the optimal
operating point and is where most plants want to be. Operating at the lowest
backpressures, means having the coldest steam condensation temperatures. As the
backpressure increases, the generating efficiency is going to decrease which will mean a
decline in steam turbine generating capacity. As climatic conditions change, the cooling
system performance will also change causing the turbine to operate at different
backpressures. When the cooling system performance declines, the steam condensation
temperature increases, the turbine backpressure goes up, generating capacity is lost and
there are energy penalties. When the turbine backpressure cannot be maintained within
the manufacturers design range due to reduced cooling system performance, then the

turbine-generator must be shut down and de-ratings occur. All of this can be calculated
in terms of megawatts.
For the UWAG study, we estimated the maximum energy penalty as the loss in steam
turbine-generator capacity due to the decline in cooling system performance during the
hottest time of the year (usually considered to occur at the highest temperatures
experienced during 1% of the time over the four-month period of mid-May to midSeptember). For wet cooling systems, the maximum energy penalties all hover around
zero. A wet cooling system has very low energy penalties because the ambient wet-bulb
temperatures do not change that much and there is enough operating flexibility in the
cooling system and the associated turbine-generator to accommodate those temperature
variations.
It is significantly different with the dry cooling system. As the ambient dry-bulb
temperatures start to go up, there is greater difficult in meeting the cooling demand.
Turbine backpressure begins to rise substantially and turbine-generator power production
declines. In this case, the differences in estimates maximum energy penalties do reflect
site-to-site differences in temperatures. During the year, Sacramento has much higher
temperatures and a greater temperature range than either Albany or Madison. Therefore,
during the summer months, the performance decline for a dry cooling system will be
greater and more megawatts will be lost in Sacramento than in Albany or Madison. That
is the biggest regional difference we found when looking at both capital costs and O&M
costs. It really shows up in dry cooling energy penalties.
Estimated Maximum Cooling System
Energy Penalty for Base Case
Base Case Site

Maximum Energy Penalty (MW)

Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Albany, NY

0.0

29.1

Madison, WI

0.6

30.4

Atlanta, GA

0.7

34.4

Amarillo, TX

-2.3

39.1

0.0

45.2

Sacramento, CA

Is there a way to put a dollar value with this? This is difficult because the spot price for
replacement electrical power when the energy penalty occurs is not known.
However, we prepared a chart that shows energy penalty costs as a function of energy
penalty for three different replacement electrical power costs. If you have an energy
penalty of 20MW and can purchase replacement power on the open market at $25/MWhr, then the overall cost is minor. But when the price of replacement power increases to
$250/MW-hr, then at $130,000 the overall cost is starting to become appreciable. When
the price of replacement power reaches $500/MW-hr, the overall cost of $260,000 will
get almost anyones attention. Imagine then how California utilities recently felt when
they were paying $1100/MW-hr. The resulting maximum energy penalty cost would
be enormous, even though it occurs only 1% of the time during the four hottest months of
the year. The trouble with a dry cooling system is that its worst performance is usually

going to occur during the times of highest consumer power demand. Thats when most
areas experience the greatest ambient dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures. So,
unfortunately, poor dry cooling system performance coincides with high consumer power
demand and correspondingly high spot market electricity prices.
Energy Penalty Costs as a Function
of Replacement Power Costs
Energy Penalty Costs
($ Millions)
Assumes and incidence of 1% during the four
warmest months of the year (29.2 hrs)

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00

$500/MW-hr

$250/MW-hr

$25/MW-hr

10

20

30

40

50

Energy Penalty (MW)

Using the base-case cost estimates and Energy Information Administration (EIA)
statistics for projected growth in combined cycle generating capacity over the next 20
years, we prepared industry estimates for five geographic regions associates with our five
study sites. Albany became the northeastern region, Madison the upper central region,
Atlanta the southeastern region, Amarillo the lower central region and Sacramento the
western region.
In looking at the EIA statistics for the five geographic regions, the next table essentially
is the anticipated growth in gigawatts (GW for combined cycle capacity over the next 20
years. We attempted to define geographic groups that would represent approximately
20% of the total anticipated growth in national combined cycle generating capacity.
However, that was not always possible due to the modular manner in which EIA data are
summarized and the practical need to group only modules that are contiguous.
New Combined Cycle Generating
Capacity by Geographic Group
Geographic Group

New CC Generating Capacity

Total (GW)
Percent of Total

Northeastern

23.51

17.40

Upper Central

19.21

14.21

Southeastern

38.20

28.26

Lower Central

34.82

25.76

Western

19.43

14.37

We extrapolated base-case cooling system costs to estimate the regional and total national
costs if all of the new combined cycle capacity was built with either recirculated wet
cooling systems (cooling towers) or direct-dry cooling systems (air-cooled condensers).
For wet cooling systems, the total capital cost was about $3.2 billion; for dry cooling
systems, the total capital cost was about $7.2 billion. These are not small numbers, so
obviously the utility industry is very interested in the future of cooling systems
technology for new power plants.
Estimated Regional and National
Cooling System Capital Costs
Capital Costs ($ Millions)
Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Geographic Group
Northeastern

582.3

1,388.5

Upper Central

445.1

1,064.2

Southeastern

870.9

2,105.1

Lower Central

742.5

1,813.3

Western

573.3

1,348.7

3,214.1

7,719.8

Total United States

We took a similar approach to extrapolate base-case O&M costs over an anticipated 20year plant life to estimate regional and national cooling system O&M costs for new
combined cycle power plants. The results indicate that wet cooling system (cooling
tower) O&M costs would total about $1.8 billion; direct-dry cooling system (air-cooled
condenser) O&M costs would total about $3.5 billion. Keep in mind, these numbers
dont include the energy penalties because we could not know what a utility would have
to pay for replacement electrical power. These numbers include only O&M labor and
materials, and auxiliary power. In the case of dry cooling, there is a potential for these
number to be much higher as a result of energy penalties due to reduced system
performance.
Estimated Regional and National
Cooling System O&M Costs
Geographic Group

O&M Costs ($ Millions)

Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Northeastern

317.2

616.5

Upper Central

216.7

422.9

Southeastern

500.8

974.4

Lower Central

465.5

902.9

Western

312.6

608.8

Total United States

1,812.6

3,525.5

Estimated Regional and National

Cooling System Total Costs
Geographic Group

Total Costs ($ Millions)

Wet Cooling
Dry Cooling

Northeastern

899.5

2,005.0

Upper Central

661.8

1,487.1

Southeastern

1,371.5

3,079.5

Lower Central

1,208.0

2,716.2

885.9

1,957.5

5,026.7

11,245.3

Western
Total United States

So for the power industry, what is the bottom line? Will the industry continue with wet
cooling systems or move toward dry cooling systems? What are the issues and the
potential costs?
Obviously, the estimated capital cost for a direct-dry cooling system is significantly
higher than a recirculated wet cooling system, about 140% higher. Thats true because a
dry cooling system has more expensive erected equipment, and, for a comparable heat
rejection, it will be much larger than a wet cooling system since an air-cooled condenser
has lower heat transfer performance than a standard cooling tower.
Furthermore, the estimated O&M cost for a direct-dry cooling system is almost twice as
much as for a recirculated wet cooling system designed for a comparable heat rejection.
The higher O&M costs reflect a dry cooling systems greater sensitivity to climatic
conditions, as well as lower overall system performance.
Remember, the performance of a dry cooling is more greatly influenced by climatic
conditions than a wet cooling system because the ambient dry-bulb temperatures will
vary on a daily and seasonal basis over much higher values and a greater range than the
corresponding ambient wet-bulb temperatures. This means the performance of a dry
cooling system will vary much more than a wet cooling system.
Consequently, dry cooling systems are more likely to experience greater and more
expensive energy penalties. In addition, these energy penalties are more likely to
coincide with times of peak power demand and high replacement costs. So, from a
performance perspective, the potential for incurring some rather serious energy penalty
costs with dry cooling, at least in the power industry, is significant.
On the other hand, dry cooling uses substantially less water than wet cooling. In an
extremely water-scarce area, this could be an important advantage for dry cooling.
Because dry cooling uses less water, it may reduce the immediate impacts associated with
fish impingement and entrainment at intakes for wet cooling systems (although natural
compensation mechanisms may also mitigate these impacts for wet cooling systems). In
addition, dry cooling eliminates both thermal and wastewater discharge permitting and
monitoring issues. So dry cooling systems offer certain benefits. But dry coolings high

costs and poor performance mean that wet cooling would almost always be the first
choice for new power plants in the foreseeable future.
Q. Saudi Aramco: How would the climate temperature, talking about 120F during the
daytime, affect the selection of going to a wet or dry system?
Micheletti: As the ambient dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures goes up, you have to
have more heat transfer surface area to provide the same heat rejection. So you have to
build a larger cooling system to accommodate those higher temperatures. But since drybulb temperatures reach higher levels and vary over wider ranges, the impacts on the size
of a dry cooling system (air-cooled condenser) will be greater than for a wet cooling
system (cooling tower). To be honest some of the energy penalties we are talking about
for dry cooling could be avoided, if you are willing to accept a significantly increased
capital cost to build a larger capacity dry cooler that you may not need most of the year
but only 1-5% of the time.
Q. Michele Monjoie, Hamon: In your O&M costs did you include the cost of the water
for the wet cooling?
Micheletti: We looked at the cost of water. Most power plants in the U.S. do not pay
for water. They get it out of a river, or a lake. There is potentially a water treatment
cost associated with it if filtration or some other treatment is required. The major cost is
the O&M cost of pumping water from the source into the plant; using it and returning it
back to the source. From that perspective the makeup water cost issue was shelved.
Q. Michell: Could you clarify the summary tables with the dollars on them? You talked
about mid-1999 dollars on some of the estimates and then later on you made a
comment that if you summed it all up looking over the 20-year period here is what the
number is. Does that include some escalation?
Micheletti: Yes, costs were escalated over a 20-year plant life and then restated in terms
of 1999 dollars. All the monies you see are mid-1999 dollars.
Q. Michell: So it is a present worth? What kind of escalation did you assume?
Micheletti: Yes, the monies are a present worth analysis. The escalation was 4%. That
escalation factor was selected because we wanted to be consistent with another study that
had been done for the EPA.
Before I close out, I would like to thank UWAG (the Utility Water Act Group which
supported much of the work that Jack and I presented. I would also like to thank Dr.
Detlev Kroger who has written a book titled Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers and Cooling
Towers; all of the cooling system diagrams weve shown today were taken from this
book.
We are going to shift gears slightly. Weve been talking about big systems, power plants
and large demand cooling. Now we are going to talk about systems that are more
moderate in size or perhaps even small.
Glenn Comisac, Baltimore Aircoil Company: As mentioned I will be presenting the part
of the program that concerns wet and air-dried cooling. We will be looking at an airconditioning case, typical of many chiller applications that may be involved in a wide
variety of process plants but on a small scale. Even though you are not involved in airconditioning, I think the information shown will be typical for many applications where
chillers are involved. I need to give credit to Mike Pugh who is the original author of
this presentation. On behalf of the Cooling Technology Institute he presented it at the

ASHRAE meeting February 2001 in Atlanta, Georgia. CTI contributed some research
and information for an education seminar at ASHRAE.
The U.S. government has become very active in trying to impact HVAC systems and
equipment design. The EPA Energy Star program is a program where owners and
operators are actively encouraged to participate in economic justification of energy
saving projects and that includes upgrades of existing systems.
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 or EPACT was also a primary standard in establishing
some energy efficiency levels among other things. ASHRAE standard 90.1 was the
basis for energy efficiency for commercial buildings. It was revised in June 1999 and
has been submitted to the DOE (Department of Energy) for acceptance and has recently
been adopted for the ICC Energy Code that governs many of the commercial buildings
across the United States. Basically the government and we are trying to make energy
saving system designs or even environmental responsibility to minimize environmental
impact. That is mainly due to CO2 emissions from power plants. If you reduce the
demand on the power plant perhaps you can reduce the fossil fuel burned and reduce the
emissions. Thus the government drive.
We are going to be looking at basic air-conditioning systems. In general if you look at
larger buildings greater than 400 tons, a ton being the heat rate required to melt or freeze
one ton of ice in a 24-hour period. One ton is 12,000 BTUs per hour and is about
3,500KW worth of air-conditioning. In larger buildings greater than 400 tons, water
cooled systems are prevalent due to the economic environmental justification. However
the mid-size building (200-400 ton range) despite the environmental regulations, despite
the drive for more efficient systems youre just as likely to see an air-cooled piece of
equipment on those buildings sacrificing energy efficiencies due to some first cost
insensitive that we will be looking at. Its a little different that what you saw at the
power plant where the air-cooled condensers came at a first cost premium. On these
smaller systems the air-cooled system may actually be cheaper. That could be due to the
remarkably different construction of a refrigerant condensing coil vs. a steamcondensing coil. It could also be due to the size of the project and the commercial
design of the product. There are a lot of factors can go into this that we didnt look into
or determine.
We are going to look at a theoretical building and some representative numbers. This is
not a case study but more of a middle of the road approach for across the U.S. It will be
a 400-ton square building, five (5) floors, and one air-handling fan per floor. The air
volume is 350 CFM/ton and 3.5 inches water gauge total stag pressure on the fans. This
is middle of the road information determined from various industry professional that we
canvassed, chiller manufacturers, a number of people were brought in to consult on this.
System Energy Requirements
400-Ton Centrifugal Chiller System
KW/Unit

Total KW

220.00

220.00

Air-handling units

22.37

111.85

Chilled H2O pump

14.92

14.92

Compressor

Condenser H2O pump

11.19

11.19

Cooling Tower Fan

18.65

18.65

Total KW

376.61

Lets move on to the package systems. The rooftop system would have five (5) 80-ton
units, a compressor, air-handling fan and condenser fan for a total of 565.45KW or
1.42KW/ton.
System Energy Requirements
400-Ton Rooftop System
KW/Unit

Total KW

Compressor

74.65

373.25

Air-handling fan

29.84

149.20

8.60

43.00

Condenser fan
Total KW

565.45

Moving back to the waterside weve added a cooling tower fan, and condenser water
pump. Being water-cooled it is reduced to 457.39KW or 1.14KW/ton.
System Energy Requirements
400-Ton Self-Contained System
KW/Unit

Total KW

Compressor

63.12

315.60

Air-handling fan

22.37

111.85

Condenser H2O pump

11.19

11.19

Cooling tower fan

18.75

18.75

Total KW

457.39

Summarizing here you can see air-cooled, water-cooled, air-cooled, water-cooled. There
is a significant reduction in the energy consumption for the chiller system, which is as
you may have expected. Apparently from this in the cases we looked at the water-cooled
systems are more energy efficient than air-cooled systems and they support the
environmental efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the demand on the
power plant and hopefully reducing the fossil fuel burn.
To quote former President, Bill Clinton, If we do it right, protecting the climate will
yield not costs, but profits; not burdens, but benefits; not sacrifice, but a higher standard
of living. This is a lead into how much is this thing really going to cost. Youve got to
wonder when they say its going to be less expensive is it really? The following is a look
at the installed cost estimate sources. On the air-cooled chiller, the middle of the road in
this size range is $350/ton and the installation cost is going to raise up by about 50% and

so on. It is amazing when building these building over an over and they are so common
in size and design how you can come down with such pretty reliable rules of thumb.
Installed Cost Estimate Sources
Air-Cooled Chiller

$350/Tr X 1.50

Centrifugal Chiller

$250/Tr X 1.50

Rooftop Units

$550/Tr X 1.25

Self-Contained Units

$400/Tr X 1.50

Air-Handling Units

$100/CFM X 1.25

Cooling Towers

$45/Tr X 1.50

Pump/Piping

Means Mech. Est.

In the first case stepping through the various components, tallying up the figures, the total
installed cost is about $455,600. Looking at the centrifugal chiller system, as with the
power plant, there are significantly more components involved and the expense goes up
in this case to $498,400. The five 80-ton rooftop units has an installed cost of $275,000
and the self-contained floor-by-floor units will cost $324,800. In just summarizing you
can see why some of the 200-400 ton buildings are using air-cooled equipment. If you
are not going to be the building owner/operator or just in there for a short term the
immediate up front gain is attractive. To save $25,000-$45,000 on a project that is worth
less than a half million is attractive.
The system energy cost assumptions are 1800 equivalent full load hours/yr, on the airconditioning system that includes a lot of reduced load hours and some peak load hours
to come up that number. We assume the price of $0.06/KW as an average and $12/KW
demand charge for six months. Again these are middle of the road numbers. The tally
for the energy cost comparison for the four systems has a wide variation as seen in the
table below.
Annual Energy Cost Comparison
Total
KW

Energy
Cost

Demand
Cost

Total
Cost

Chiller Systems
Air-cooled chiller
Centrifugal chiller

595.27
376.61

$64,289
$40,674

$42,860
$27,116

$107,149
$67,790

Packaged Systems
Rooftop
Self-contained

565.45
457.39

$61,069
$49,398

$40,712
$32,932

$101,781
$ 82,330

Tallying and setting our installed costs next to our energy cost, or at least eating away at
that first cost premium associated with the water-cooling system.

System Cost Summary

Installed
Cost

Energy
Cost

Chiller Systems
Air-cooled chiller
Centrifugal chiller

$455,600
$498,400

$107,149
$ 67,790

Packaged Systems
Rooftop
Self-contained

$275,000
$324,800

$101,781
$ 82,330

However there is water usage to be considered. We are going to assume we are

recycling 95% of the total water as is typical. A small portion of the water is being bled
to control the build-up of impurities. The bleed rate is our evaporation rate over cycles
of concentration minus one. In this case the evaporation rate is 3.0 GPM/100-tons on a
typical chiller system (estimated) so we are looking at total of 12 GPM for our system.
The bleed rate assuming four cycled of concentration is an additional 4.0 GPM so we will
be looking at 16 GPM of makeup water. The annual water consumption would be 16
GPM X 60 Min/Hr X 1800 Eq FLH yields 1.7M gallons/yr. The annual water and
sewage cost using $3/1000 gallon equals to about $5,200 roughly.
The water quality wouldnt be particularly great if we didnt treat it so we are going to
treat it to control scale/corrosion and biological growths. This cost now needs to be
included in the analysis. The full water service water treatment average annual program
costs $1/ton/month, which gives us another $2,400/year in addition to the water cost or a
total of approximately $7,600 in annual water cost for the water-cooled systems.
Back to the summary table we have gained some on energy cost but will loose some in
water cost but there is still a reasonable pay back in terms of number of years to go from
a air-cooled system to a water-cooled system. Under the chiller system you are looking
at a 1.3/yr payback and if you start looking at a 5-10 year building life your rate of return
will rival that of what you are getting the market these days. So it would be money well
spent if you were the owner.
System Cost Summary
Installed
Cost

Energy
Cost

Water
Cost

Payback
Yrs

Chiller Systems
Air-cooled chiller
Centrifugal chiller

$455,600
$498,400

$107,149
$ 67,790

N/A
$7,584

Base
1.3

Packaged Systems
Rooftop
Self-contained

$275,000
$324,800

$101,781
$ 82,330

N/A
$7,584

Base
4.2

(Changed tape lost some of the presentation)

Cost analysis must consider the economic impact that environmental and electric power
generation issues will have on energy prices in the near future.
At the Kyoto Conference (an international effort to control greenhouse gas emitions) the
Protocol was signed in 1997. It commits us to reducing greenhouse gas emitions to 7%
below the 1990 levels by the year 2012. Editor's note: This protocol has since been
voided in the US by action of the president. With all this new generating capacity
coming on line it is difficult to see how we are going to do that without incurring some
significant cost. Ratification by the U.S. Senate is pending.
From the Kyoto Protocol if this is adhered to the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) report in 1998 estimated the impact on power to the commercial market. In terms
of present value they anticipate a 17% increase by the year 2005 and a 65% increase by
the year 2010 present value vs. todays energy cost.
As we go back and adjust the analysis summary the payback for the water-cooled system
comes in with less than a year for the chiller system and for the packaged system you are
looking at a two-year payback and in five-years you are looking at more than a 10%
return on your investment on the packaged system case and in ten-years it grows even
more. So it is certainly a justifiable payback and a good place to invest your monies if
you are going to be a long-term system owner.
2010 Kyoto Impact on Simple Payback Analysis
Installed
Cost

Energy
Cost

Water
Cost

Payback
Yrs

Chiller Systems
Air-cooled chiller
Centrifugal chiller

$455,600
$498,400

$177,153
$112,079

N/A
$7,584

Base
0.75

Packaged Systems
Rooftop
Self-contained

$275,000
$324,800

$168,278
$136,119

N/A
$7,584

Base
2.0

Concerning the deregulation of energy, the breakup of the energy transmission network
has been very much impacting energy cost these days. Many states have enacted it,
others are in the process, and some states are at the looking stage. It wont remain the
same cost structure that commercial industry has been use to seeing.
Assuming no Kyoto Protocol, the 1998 U.S. government reported projection of a
decrease of electricity prices by 2010 due to the competitive environment established by
deregulation. On the other hand the Agriculture Department in 1999 said that 19 states
should expect higher prices as low cost producers sell into higher price markets. The
deregulation experience so far has shown that generation capacity right now is marginal;
there is not an overabundant supply to reduce the price for the given demand. The
transmission is limited so you have sharp location price differential, California for
instance, due to the inability to get enough energy. Finally there is some question about
distribution and whether local distribution systems can handle the increase in peak loads
that are being generated as the information age comes into full swing. What we are

seeing is a trend toward the power market moving to real-time pricing and a real-time
supply in demand pricing a peak power. If deregulation truly exists the price at those
times is going to continue to spike higher and higher. Some recent examples of what this
means, the high summer daytime rates depending where you are and be $7/KWH in San
Diego, $6/KWH on the northeastern coast, $0.70/KWH in Texas or $0.13/KWH in
Montana. It also means low summer night rates. Propose utility profiles can show a
spike of $0.01/KWH at night to $0.13/KWH during the peak in Texas; this is without any
serious deregulation, this is just what is being anticipated. Another proposed utility
profile shows a spike of $0.02/KWH at night to $0.23/KWH during the peak time at the
University of North Carolina. As you have read in the papers or as you may know $0.23
during peak is a bargain in a lot of places.
What will be the result of real-time pricing? The commercial air-conditioning systems
will be operating exactly on peak and only during the peak prices. So the impact of cost
for electricity will be even more so and further favor of the use of water-cooling systems
for some of the small to moderate size buildings. The energy saving system design is
our environmental responsibility but it is also going to be our physical responsibility to
maintain cost of our processes, of our air-conditionings, and of our operating systems.
The EPA has put together a 60-page book titled Wise Rules for Industrial Efficiency.
It is a toolkit for estimating energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions. It
looks at various steps one can take from boilers, steam systems, processing heating, waste
heat recovery and co-generation, compressed air systems, and process cooling. It covers
a wide range of topics in a very broad-brush approach but it has some interesting
information.
One of the things they do is to put out their Wise Rules. For process cooling, which
includes air-conditioning, they have six (6) wise rules. They are:
Rule #1. Install energy efficient chillers and refrigeration systems. You can save on a
facilitys total energy use with an average simple payback under two-years.
This
includes evaporative equipment, evaporative equipment with an evaporative condenser,
and chiller manufactures are going to that end or are looking to producing products that
have the direct evaporative cooling.
Rule #2. Free cooling can save on your total energy use at your facility. That is, shut
off the compressor and use the cold tower water during the winter months or cool
weather months to eliminate the compressor energy consumption.
Rule #3. Free cooling can reduce cooling system energy use by as much as 40% if
you can run just the cooling tower.
Rule #4. Increasing chilled water temperatures by 1F you can save 0.6% to 2.5% on
your system energy consumption.
Rule #5. Reducing condenser pressure by 10 psi can decrease refrigeration system
energy use per ton of refrigeration by about 6%.
Rule #6. For each degree decrease in condenser cooling waste temperature, until optimal
waste temperature is reached, there is a decrease in chiller energy use by up to 3.5%.

Air-conditioning system evaluations should take the pending impact of environmental

issues into consideration. Our cost structure is changing and we expect to see higher
costs for energy in the future. Water-cooled systems provide the most energy efficient
systems and can help protect against the threat of rising electricity pricing.
Micheletti: Our next presenter is Tom Feeley with the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), National Energy Technology Lab. We are going to shift a bit and get back into
the power industry. Tom has been looking at some of the same concerns that Jack and I
looked at but with a slightly different perspective. We looked at new facilities and he
will be speaking about the implications of retrofit.
Tom Feeley: This is a difference audience for the DOE to be talking with and hopefully
by the end of the presentation I make this morning you will understand why DOE has
taken an interest in the issue of wet and dry cooling, particularly related to the 316(b).
What I would like to do this morning is to tell you who the National Energy Technology
Lab (NETL) is, and speak a little more on 316(b) regulation as it might impact the
existing fleet of fossil fuel based power producers. I will also go into why the DOE is
interested in this issue to begin with, to talk about some preliminary results of analysis we
have done on the potential implications of 316(b) on the existing fleet and finally end up
with a brief discussion of our future plans.
Who is the NETL? We are part of the DOEs office of fossil energy. We became a
national lab in December, 1999 so we are the newest of the DOEs national labs. We are
the only government owned and operated national lab.
There are a total of 15
laboratories. Our focus is on fossil energy and that is primarily the production of power
from fossil fuels whether natural gas, oil, or coal. We have an extensive extra mural
research and development (R&D) program. We have an annual budget that ranges
between $400M-$600M/year out of our laboratory. Most of that goes out the door for
research that we conduct jointly and partner with industry, and/or universities. We work
at lot with some of the utility folks that are here today such as Southern Company
Services, American Electric Power and TVA. We also have an in house program and an
in house R&D program. We provide technical support for energy and environmental
policy issues and that is the nature of the assessment that Im going to speak to you about
today. We have two sites. The NETL is a joining of the Pittsburgh Energy Technology
Center and the Morgantown Energy Technology Center.
There is about 1,200
employees working at both sites; a 50/50 split between federal employees and contract
employees. Our primary mission is to resolve environmental supply and reliability
constraints producing end using fossil fuel resources. We also manage part of the DOEs
Environmental Management program which deals with developing and deploying
environmental technologies to reduce the costs and risk of remediating DOEs weapons
complexes. The bulk of what the DOE does and the bulk of its funding goes into its
weapons program. There is a lot of effort over the last 7-8 years in decommissioning
many of the DOEs nuclear sites and weapons complexes. We also contribute to the best
business and management practices within the DOE.
In terms of coal base power production, historically that has been the focus of the NETL.
We have focus on developing both science and technology to improve the performance of
fossil fuel base power systems with most of that effort going towards coal based power

systems. There are a number of issues that I think you are aware of that are either here
today or on the horizon that will indeed impact both the cost and availability of coal
based electricity in the U.S. These include things like power plant reliability. We are
all aware of what is going on in terms of the availability of power in electricity in
California. There is multi-pollutant control. There has been a lot of talk that started in
the previous administration and is carrying over into the Bush administration of an
attempt to package several pollutants together in one piece of control regulation so that
the industry isnt faced with a piece mill or by-pollutant control regulation as has been in
the past. This is to give the utility industry an idea of what is coming over the next 1015 years and to provide a promise of a safe harbor. This is what the environmental
regulation for SO2, NOx, mercury and CO2 will be over the next 15 years. Then allow
the industry to put together the most cost effective, integrated strategy to get there so you
are not changing the rules of the game 2-3 years after industry has invested in a certain
piece of technology. Next, climate change obviously is going to be a major issue facing
not only the U.S. but also the world in terms of its impact on the production of power
from fossil fuels. Finally, water quality and availability. This is a recent issue that we
are looking into. We have traditionally focused air issues and some waste issues
associated with power production, i.e. what do you do with these by products from coal
combustion. As a matter of fact there is an article in the Power Engineering magazine
on some of the breakthroughs and progress that has been made on the use of coal
combustion by products as road aggregates and manufacturing wallboard. We have been
involved in that program as well.
My role as the Environmental and Water Resources Product Manager is to manage our
environmental control technology development program. We have two specific goals.
The first being, to develop low-cost advanced environmental control systems. Again
they have been mostly focused on air emissions.
Improved controls for reducing
emissions of SO2, NOX, and mercury have been a major focus of our efforts over the last
few years. Our second goal is to provide high quality scientific information on present
and emerging environmental issues for use in regulatory and policy decision making.
We like to think of ourselves as arbiters or an unbiased broker in issues that affect the
industry and environmental proposals that come from the EPA. We do that through the
inner agency review process. The second goal of the product area that I manage really
led us into the 316(b) issue.
What is 316(b). It is a section of the Clean Water Act that deals with establishing
national requirements applicable to location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling
water intake structures that reflect best technology available (BTA) for minimizing
environmental impacts. The point of contention between the stakeholders involved in
the issue is how do you define adverse environmental impacts.
The primary
environmental impact that 316(b) is meant to address is the entrainment and impingement
of fish and other aquatic organisms. The term of best technology available has also been
an issue of contention in terms of the comments that EPA has received back from
environmental groups and from industry. The DOE did take part in the commenting on
316(b) for new facilities that we did over the course of a year.
Historically, suffices to say that the whole 316(b) has had quite an interesting history. It
first emerged in 1972 when the Clean Air Act came about. EPA promulgated final

316(b) regulations about 1976 and then withdrew those regulations as a result of a utility
challenge in 1979. In the 1980-1995 period many states issued their own cooling water
intake structure regulations. In the mid-1990s EPA was sued by environmental groups
and they are currently under a consent decree to promulgate both 316(b) regulations for
new facilities, which have already come out and then to follow up with regulations for
existing facilities. Again it is the existing facilities that DOE has taken an interest in in
terms of analysis of what impact that may have on electricity availability.
As part of the consent decree EPA is going about 316(b) in a two-phased approach.
Phase one was an issue, in the Federal Register, August 10, 2000 the 316(b) of the
regulations for new facilities. In phase two they will address 316(b) related intake issues
for existing facilities.
Some key milestones for the 316(b) are June 20, 2001 is the deadline for EPA to propose
Phase II regulations for existing facilities; May 16, 2002 the administrator is to take a
final action with respect to the Phase I proposal; and April 1, 2004 the EPA to take final
action with respect to Phase II rule. I believe these dates are still valid although 316(b)
maybe one of the environmental regulations that the new administration takes a look at
relative to its potential impact on electricity availability.
So why is the NETL concerned? There is about 300GW of existing coal-fired capacity
providing electricity in the U.S. That is about 50-60% of the total electricity generated
in the country. So coal-fired power plants are an important source of electricity in the
U.S. We saw 316(b) for this existing fleet of power plants to be a potential concern in
terms of the availability and reliability of energy, efficiency in de-rating, cost of
electricity, new source review and increased emissions. The issue of de-rating followed
by burning additional fuels could contribute to CO2 and to the climate change issues.
NETL only picked up the ball on this a short while ago. We decided to take a look at
this and do an in house analysis on the existing fleet of power plants. The analysis was
just completed before this meeting so you are seeing these results publicly for the first
time and they are preliminary. We looked at a base case situation, which was a 400MW
coal-fired power plant located in the Delaware River Basin. It is to be a once-through
cooling system. (My understanding is about 50% of the existing coal-fired fleet operates
once-through systems.) If the 316(b) for existing plants were proposed, if the BAT for
existing fleet was a cooling system of some sort there are a lot of GW that would be
impacted that because many of those plants are once through systems. We looked a
three impact cases 1) recirculating evaporative cooling tower, 2) hybrid cooling system,
and 3) direct dry cooling system. The design conditions were during the summer time;
dry bulb temperature of 93F, wet-bulb temperature of 79F and surface water
temperature was 76F.
The following table shows the preliminary results:
Steam
Turbine
Exhaust
Temp
Deg -F

Condenser
Exit
Temp
Deg F

Condenser
Heat Duty
MM Btu/hr

Net
Plant
Power
MW

Net Plant
Efficiency
(HHV)

Cooling
Water
Consumption
MM lb/hr

Case 1, Once
Through System

89

86

1703.95

408.23

38.59%

170.40

Case 2, Recirculating
Cooling Tower

102

99

1736.04

399.75

37.80%

2.46

Case 3, Hybrid
Cooling Tower

116

113

1771.01

390.75

36.94%

1.04

Case 4, Dry Cooling

Tower

126

123

1796.23

384.17

36.31%

0.00

What our analysis indicated is if you put a dry system on a once through plant you will
have about a 6% energy penalty so you will de-rate that plant by as much as 6% in this
particular situation with the assumptions that we made in terms of approach the wet bulb
and the dry bulb temperature. Remember this is a preliminary analysis but it lends some
support to our belief if the 316(b) for existing facilities or existing coal-fired power plants
requires that once through systems switch to either wet or dry there will be a net decrease
in overall output from those plants. That will be a concern in terms of availability of
electricity. It will certainly be a concern to those states, such as California that have
experienced a short fall on electricity. So DOE is looking at this and will be working
with government agencies in terms of looking at the potential impact of an environmental
policy on energy availability.
In fact Vice President Chaney is heading up an
intergovernmental task force that is taking on the issue of energy policy, environmental
policy and the mix and match of the two to insure that we dont find ourselves either in
California or other parts of the country in a situation where there is a deficiency of
electricity.
This preliminary analysis indicates that there would be a fairly significant impact on
availability in de-rating, of going from a once-through system to either a wet or dry
system. With a dry system, obviously having the greatest impact as a result of the
backpressure issue on availability and output. The advantage from going a once through
system, I dont want to underestimate that there are environmental benefits to be gained
by requiring once through systems to go to a wet cooling tower or to a dry system, is that
you essentially do away with the impact of entrainment and impingement particularly
with the dry system.
For those areas and regions of the country that have water
availability issues there is certainly a lot to be gained by going to a dry system. DOE
isnt taking any issue on wet vs. dry vs. once through in terms of suggesting that one is
better than the other nor have we taken any position on the 316(b) issue. What we would
like to do is to be able to provide the data to the regulatory and the policy people to help
them make wise decisions.
Q. couldnt hear! I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS- COULD JUST
DELETE IT.
Feeley: For the recirculating on a net plant power output we went from 408MW down to
399MW. For the dry system we went from 408MW down to 384MW.
Summarizing the table relative to the once through cooling the cooling towers
dramatically reduce cooling water consumption.
The heat transfer inefficiencies
associated with wet and dry cooling systems increase turbine backpressure, which results
in reduced power plant efficiency.

Our future plans is to, over the next several months, run additional cases, look at other
climatic regions of the U.S. and sharpen the pencil a bit in terms of the analysis as well.
We want to continue to evaluate potential impact of cooling systems on efficiency and
emissions from existing fleet, to identify information gaps and research needs, and work
with key stakeholders including industry and regulatory agencies.
Q. Michell: That 6% was basically a predicted de-rate. When you talk about the
country as a whole and try to estimate emissions and so forth did the folks doing the
analysis consider that some plants would be shut down, not really de-rated. Based on
economics and a number of factors the 316(b) was repealed there would be units
shutdown and that generation, theoretically would have to be made up somewhere.
Feeley: That is for sure. We havent extrapolated out this one case yet for a nationwide
result but we would definitely factor that in that a certain order of plants would not be
economical to retrofit.
Michell: We have facilities that economics and sometimes just physical limitations you
can't retrofit.
Feeley: Right, trying to shoehorn in a dry system on some of these existing plants is
probably impossible, dry or wet.
Q. Jack Bland, ChemTreat, Inc.: I wanted to revisit a question ask earlier regarding the
thermal plumes from wet vs. dry cooling towers. If dry towers are less efficient, that
means you are going to be adding more thermal emissions to the air than you would
with a wet tower. It appears that it is costs benefit analysis financial costs cannot be
taken in to consideration as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday on the Clean
Air Act. If that in fact holds true, wouldnt it be a good idea to approach wet vs. dry
from an increase thermal pollution standpoint as related to the supposed concerns
about global warming? Do you see where I am going? Thermal emissions should
certainly be considered into this, if you cant consider any of the financial
considerations of wet vs. dry. If financial considerations cannot be considered as a
reason for going to one technology could you use the thermal emissions differential
as perhaps a defense toward moving toward all dry cooling towers.
Feeley: We are not policy people. We are technical people. While that maybe an
issue that policy people seize on and ask them to provide them with technical information
I would not even begin to guess what the position of the policy people would be. I do
know that from responses to the new facility rule that were filed by the environmental
stakeholders, their position all along has been that cost is not an issue, that cost does not
enter into this at all and that cost should have never been evaluated because it had no
meaning. I didnt know the court had ruled yesterday. I know that if it went in favor of
the environmental stakeholders where cost is not an issue that probably sealed the fate on
this as well. It will be tough to plead that cost is an issue.
Bland: You did such an excellent job in categorizing cost in so many different areas, I
wonder if you could categorize the thermal emissions differential from wet vs. dry and
publish that data if in fact it runs parallel to all of the other cost benefits you spoke of.
That would certainly seem to be an environmentally way to go.

Feeley: The heat has to be rejected. We are all willing to accept this fact; even the
environmental stakeholders accept the fact that heat has to be rejected. Normally they
have favored rejection to the ambient air because they see that as the ultimate sink as
opposed to water where the impact is much greater ecological environment in the water.
Bland: But nobody has considered the increased heat associated with all cooling towers
if converted to dry.
Feeley: Not that I am aware of.
Micheletti: I dont believe that has been raised as an environmental issue yet. It would
be more difficult quantify but not impossible.
Q.

Micheletti: Do you see a situation where a power plant might be allowed to

collaborate on or initiate on a cost sharing basis of projects where they could reduce
their water usage or upgrade or use some technology without triggering a source
review.

Feeley: Akin to an air pollution bubble you would lower emissions or use of water in
some other industry, you would take credit for that?
Micheletti: You would change your usage of the water to be more environmentally
productive but you wouldnt necessarily change your output in the air and then go ahead
and exist under your current operating permit.
Feeley: I wouldnt want to speak for EPA. I know EPA has in recent years been much
more open to ideas like that of suggestions where you get to where you want to go from
an environmental standpoint but you try different approaches to get there. It may be
worth the question to bounce off of the EPA. I dont know if it is closed or you still
comment on the 316(b) for the new facilities.
Burns: For the new facilities it is closed. It closed on November 10.
Feeley: But the 316(b) for existing facilities is not out yet so you might want to take an
opportunity to comment on that when it does come out.
Burns: I think one of the issues that you have to keep in mind about the 316(b), where it
fits in the Clean Water Act is its technology basis. They (the EPA) are looking to
establish technologies that are best available technologies. Once they establish that, you
are either going to have to meet that technology or demonstrate that whatever you do is
equivalent to that technology. So if dry cooling becomes the best available technology,
then you may not have to use dry cooling but you will have to demonstrate to the
regulators that whatever you do is as good for the environment or better.
Micheletti: I know of one utility that has an opportunity to reduce water usage, not
necessarily in cooling but in slurry transport and uses but cannot proceed with any new
technologies because it could trigger the review of an existing operating permit.
Feeley: That could be a state issue. As I understand it most states have the right to issue
permits and to enforce those permits. EPA reserves the right to review permits to make
sure they are consistent with federal law and if you are not enforcing it to take
enforcement actions on behalf of the public. Many times states are more stringent than
the federal.

Q. David Gary, Baltimore Aircoil Company: I want to ask a question on the 6%

reduction issue but from a different angle. Isnt it likely that much of the installed
capacity wont function properly when it is going to be air-cooled? Im talking of the
turbines; that the turbine backpressure would rise to the point that the turbine would
either require rework or would have to be replaced. More than just losing 6%
capacity you would be losing whole plants that couldnt function because of the
nature of the turbine.
Feeley: That is true. We made a simplified assumption that the plant would continue to
operate. If we did on a sites specific basis or a plant specific basis, that would be
something to take into consideration.
Gary: I think for the couple of reasons that have been mentioned that is something that
ought to be included.
Micheletti: In defense of what he has presented it was a single base case. Now if you
wanted to extrapolate that base case to the entire nation you would have to develop some
criteria for what percentage of the existing capacity would probably retire their units as
oppose to meeting the new rule. Then you could get it on a national basis.
Gary: This maybe an opportunity to use our budget surplus. We wouldnt have to lower
taxes or do anything. We could just put all of the money into generating capabilities.
Q. Ken Hennon, Power Generations Technologies: Would you speak briefly to the
conflicting goals between the Kyoto Accords and the associated increase greenhouse
gases if the dry cooling were to be implemented? You are going to have a
corresponding percentage increase in those same, assuming an equivalent heat rate;
you are going to have a corresponding increase in CO2 emissions for the loss of
capacity contributed dry cooling.
Feeley: I guess how I would respond to that without opening a can of worms is that we
are not suggesting in this analysis that dry cooling is going to be required to be put on the
existing fleet under 316(b) for existing facilities. The analysis was just to say what if
you took a once through cooling system and put a wet tower or dry system on what
would be the potential de-rating and emission penalties associated with that. Yes, there
is a disconnect between that and a climate change agreement or goal of reducing CO2
where you might be forcing a technology that could lead to increase CO2 and that would
have to be reconciled.
Lindahl: Just following up on the last comment, it seems like that might be an
opportunity for your agency as an arbiter between the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water
Act people at EPA who dont really seem to play on the same page.
Feeley: I appreciate that. That is a role that we find ourselves being more involved. I
dont want any of the comments that Ive made today to seem as though there is
negatives towards one technology vs. another where there are not meant to be prejudice
against the EPA is doing. We work closely with the EPA; we are not supportive of a
technology or an industry. What we like to do is provide numbers that can be used in
any future policy decisions.
Q. Mike Izard, Eurofill SRL: Has anybody ever tried to build into the analysis energy
costs, and consumption resources costs for actually building the cooling equipment?

In other words a once through system, cooler, a cooling tower, a dry cooler built into
the system.
Feeley: We have not and I dont know that we would do that anytime soon but it is a
possibility. But no, we havent factored that into the analysis. The analysis I presented
this morning was fairly quick. We used an Aspen model to do it but again we intend to
run analysis further but wouldnt include that at the moment.
Mirsky: I know Jack has been involved in 316(b) for a number of years and I know the
panelist are not in the prediction business, but relative to 316(b) would a couple of you
render an opinion of where you think this will end?
Micheletti: It sounds like there is a very strong movement towards dry cooling for new
facilities.
Mirsky: For 316(b), really?
Micheletti: Yes, 316(b) has very large implications. The proposed new facility rule
affects any new power plant that would use over 2 million gallons/day of surface water.
That could be a large percentage of the new power plants. I think the proposed new
facility rule would also drop the intake velocity to a ft/second or less. So, depending
upon the final rule, more power plants could move towards dry cooling, in my opinion.
Mirsky: I am surprised. I would have thought you would have said helper towers.
Considering available space, practicality of dry vs. wet size
Micheletti: Helper towers are designed to reduce the temperature of cooling system
blowdown prior to discharge. The 316(b) rules are associated with the intake and have
nothing to do with the discharge.
Burns: 316(b) is about how many fish do you entrain or impinge; helper towers just
bring in more water and they want to stop bringing water into the plant. I should point
out that 316(b) is not just a rule for power plants, it is a rule for all facilities that use
water over a certain usage level and it will apply to new refineries or new petrochemical
plants or anything else. They call it the New Facility Rule not the New Power Plant
Rule.
Mirsky: I really meant for existing.
Burns: The existing ones will also be required to comply in similar ways of the existing
facilities. Power plants are impacted the most because power plants use most of the
water.
Michell: Weve been talking about 316(b) and its related to, or for the most part, the
minimizing impact on aquatic life. Some of the things we have been looking at would be
what would it take to convert a traditional traveling water screen type of intake system to
a wedge wire submerged system. I dont know if you a familiar with the difference.
Basically, I had the understanding or impression that wouldnt necessarily mean cooling
towers at all whether wet or dry. The best available technology as far as limiting fish
entrainment maybe doing away with the traveling water screens for example, modifying
your intake system to reduce the velocity to have 1 ft/sec, basically modifying the intake
not back fitting the cycle with cooling towers. That isnt always practical either but my
understanding is that that is an option.

Feeley: EPRI has approached us about working with them on some intake structure
technology for 316(b), so that an intake structure might be the BAT (best available
technology) and as a result may not have to modify your cooling system. DOE doesnt
have a budget to allow us to do the R&D at this point. We are working to get some
money into our program to work on water related issues, but we recognize there are other
front-end technologies that may be considered BAT.
Michell: That would have a high capital cost.
Maybe off setting some lower
maintenance costs, Im not recommending it, but it would not end up with de-rate on the
unit. It may end up retiring some older plants, if the investment just isnt worth it or at
the specific site it is impractical to do. There are alternative to just retrofitting cooling
towers.
Feeley: The proposed rule that was issued in August for the new facilities was really
quite complex. It was not a simple, its going to be dry cooling or it is going to be this,
they had a number of options. EPA said we are considering this, and that, etc. They
invited comments on a number of approaches, some of which you just alluded to. I think
the issue that dry cooling has been raised to such a high level is that there are a large
group of environmental stakeholders who feel that is BAT and therefore that should be
what it is. As pointed out in the history it is the environmental stakeholders that wound
up suing EPA and told them they had to rule.
Michell: I was just hoping that maybe the set of rules for new facilities could be a little
more restrictive vs. existing facilities that are fueling our economy. Maybe there will be
more options are more maneuvering, if we dont want to cripple the economy.
Q. Scott Cedarquist, Consumer Energy: I would like to point one thing out on best
available technology. We just got a permit from the state of Michigan to increase the
amount of water we brought into our plant from Lake Michigan and they said the best
available technology would be a matrix in the bottom of the lake under the sand that
would allow you to draw the water in without any of the fish larvae. Now for a small
facility that would make sense but for us it would be an enormous matrix under the
sand. I would also like to point out that in 1971 our plant came on line as once
through cooling plant and in 1974 we installed cooling towers at the plant. Our
thermal efficiency manager said that we want to increase the plants heat rate up to
the top half of the top quartile of all nuclear plants in the U.S. That is how we are
rated but it is almost impossible to do because we were designed with a condenser for
once through cooling. If you want to look at thermal efficiencies of different plants
in the U.S. as far as nuclear power plants go then you use Palisades. I dont know
which of the other plants had once through cooling then went to cooling towers, but
that would give you a real life example.
Feeley: What you say about the matrix is very interesting also. There was some
technology that was promoted about 20-years ago. I think New England Power has a
porous dike. The built a big dike and let the water filter through the dike keeping the
fish and all other aquatic life on the other side but they were having to pull it through too
fast.
Cedarquist: We are also the operators of the Lettington Pump Storage Station, which has
to have a barrier

Jim Baker: Thank each and everyone for a very good presentation.