Improved Performance and Reduced Emission From Coal and Gas Fuelled GT-SOFC and GT-MCFC Plants: Some Studies

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Ghosh ◽  
S. De ◽  
S. Saha
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Emission Reduction ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Energy Savings ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Co2 Emission Reduction ◽  
Simulated Performance ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
Improved Performance

This paper presents conceptual models of some novel GT-SOFC and GT-MCFC plants for power and cogeneration operating on gasified coal or natural gas. Simulated performance of the modeled plants in terms of energy efficiency, emission reduction, fuel energy savings (for cogeneration) with respect to separate reference plants for power generation and utility heat production is presented and analyzed. Influences of variations in some design and operating parameters on the plant performance are also reported in the paper. A study with a coal gasification combined cycle plant using SOFC upstream of GT suggests that such plants have the potential of delivering power at an overall efficiency level exceeding 50%. A similar plant delivering both power and utility heat can potentially save about 30% of fuel with respect to separate plants for power and heat. For a conceptualized natural gas fuelled GT-MCFC CHP plant, an electrical efficiency of more than 40% and fuel energy saving exceeding, 30% are achievable. Using a CO2 separator placed at fuel cell exhaust, CO2 can be trapped in a closed cycle. CO2 emission reduction as high as 60% is achievable for such plants.

scholarly journals Phasing the Construction of an IGCC Plant for Fuel Flexibility

1992 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Dechamps ◽  
Ph. Mathieu
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Capital Cost ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Fuel Flexibility ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
Selection Of

The Integrated Coal Gasification in Combined Cycle technique allows a come back to coal: starting with a Combined Cycle plant, it is possible to add gasification units several years later and hence to switch from natural gas to coal. However, the price to pay will be capital cost but also a loss of performances of the resulting plant compared to a genuine Integrated Coal Gasification in Combined Cycle. In this paper, we investigate the phasing option starting with a new Combined Cycle plant, optimized on natural gas operation, and ending with an Integrated Coal Gasification in Combined Cycle plant. We calculate the performances of the resulting plants with four types of gasifiers based on Texaco, Shell, Dow and British-Gas-Lurgi processes. We then compare the performances of these four plants with the performances of new Integrated Coal Gasification in Combined Cycle plants, optimized on coal operation and fully integrated, comprising the same four gasifiers. We finally compare the loss of performances in the four cases and recommend the selection of a gasifier type for such a phasing strategy.

scholarly journals Ruhrchemie/Ruhrkohle’s Technical Version of the Texaco Coal Gasifier as Part of a Combined Cycle Plant

1982 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Cornils ◽  
J. Hibbel ◽  
P. Ruprecht ◽  
R. Dürrfeld ◽  
J. Langhoff
Keyword(s):  
High Pressure ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Gas Generation ◽  
Load Following ◽  
Gasification Process ◽  
Steady State Operation ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant

The Ruhrchemie/Ruhrkohle variant of the Texaco Coal Gasification Process (TCGP) has been on stream since 1978. As the first demonstration plant of the “second generation” it has confirmed the advantages of the simultaneous gasification of coal: at higher temperatures; under elevated pressures; using finely divided coal; feeding the coal as a slurry in water. The operating time so far totals 9000 hrs. More than 50,000 tons of coal have been converted to syn gas with a typical composition of 55 percent CO, 33 percent H2, 11 percent CO2 and 0.01 percent of methane. The advantages of the process — low environmental impact, additional high pressure steam production, gas generation at high pressure levels, steady state operation, relatively low investment costs, rapid and reliable turn-down and load-following characteristics — make such entrained-bed coal gasification processes highly suitable for power generation, especially as the first step of combined cycle power plants.

A GCC Power Plant With Methanol Storage for Intermediate-Load Duty

1991 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Paffenbarger
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Electricity Production ◽  
Fuel Prices ◽  
Electrical Demand ◽  
Integrated Facility ◽  
Plant Configuration

This paper describes the design and performance of a coal gasification combined-cycle power plant with an integrated facility for producing and storing methanol (GCC/methanol power plant). The methanol is produced at a steady rate and is burned in the combined cycle to generate additional power during periods of peak electrical demand. The GCC/methanol plant provides electricity generation and energy storage in one coal-based facility. It is of potential interest to electric utilities seeking to meet intermediate-load electrical demand on their systems. The plant configuration is determined by means of an innovative economic screening methodology considering capital and fuel costs over a range of cycling duties (capacity factors). Estimated levelized electricity production costs indicate that a GCC/methanol plant could be of economic interest as premium fuel prices increase relative to coal. The plant could potentially be of interest for meeting daily peak demands for periods of eight hours or less. The conceptual plant configuration employs a Texaco gasifier and a Lurgi methanol synthesis plant. Plant performance is estimated at peak and baseload output levels. No unusual design or operational problems were identified.

Fixed Duct Burner Heat Input Approach for Combined Cycle Power Plant ASME PTC 46 Performance Testing

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas K. Kirkpatrick ◽  
Bernard J. Pastorik ◽  
Wesley M. Newland
Keyword(s):  
Heat Input ◽  
Heat Rate ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Test Method ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Ambient Conditions ◽  
Power Test ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
Duct Burner

Since its publication in 1996, ASME PTC 46 Performance Test Code on Overall Plant Performance has established itself as the premier test code for conducting overall plant performance within the power industry, especially for combined cycle power plants. The current text within ASME PTC 46, which is currently under revision by the ASME PTC 46 Committee, describes in Section 5.3.4 Specified Measured Net Power that “This test is conducted for a combined cycle power plant with duct firing or other form of power augmentation, such as steam or water injection when used for that purpose.” Further, the only example problem for a combined cycle with duct firing is provided in Appendix B of the code utilizing the Specified Measured Net Power Test Method. Though the text and example are correctly presented within the code, it resulted in misinterpretation within the industry that the only correct way to test a combined cycle plant with duct firing was to conduct a Specified Measured Net Power Test. Though the Specified Measured Net Power Test Method is an acceptable and accurate method in determining the performance of a combined cycle plant with duct firing in operation, it lends to being inflexible to the weather conditions for the plant operation. When the weather is too cold, the exhaust energy from the combustion turbines may be at such a magnitude as to not allow the duct burners to be fired due to limitations within the heat recovery steam generator and steam turbine systems to take the load, thus limiting the plant testing to take place when the weather is warm enough to allow the plant to be operated with duct firing. The opposite condition can also exist where the ambient conditions are too hot so that the duct burner capacity is unable to achieve the specified measured net power allowing the test to be conducted. The limitations stated herein are the reasons that an alternative approach with more flexibility is necessary. This paper will present an alternative approach referred to as the Fixed Duct Burner Heat Input Test Method to testing combined cycle plants where the duct burner heat input (Fuel Flow) is held fixed while the plant net power and heat rate are left to float with ambient conditions. Corrections for both power and heat rate will be developed for ambient conditions per ASME PTC 46 guidelines. This paper will further present a comparison between the Specified Measured Net Power Test Method and the Fixed Duct Burner Heat Input Test Method in the areas of the flexibility of the methods for various ambient conditions, and the method uncertainty associated with each method’s ability to correct to reference conditions.

scholarly journals Compressor Washing Maintains Plant Performance and Reduces Cost of Energy Production

1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Stalder ◽  
Peter van Oosten
Keyword(s):  
Energy Production ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Output Level ◽  
Maintenance Program ◽  
Cost Of Energy ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
On Line ◽  
High Output

This paper reports about the results of a field test conducted over a period of 8000 operating hours on the effect of combined on line and off line compressor washing on a 66 MW gas turbine operating in a combined cycle plant at UNA’s Lage Weide 5 power plant in Utrecht. Observations have shown a sustained high output level close to the nominal guaranteed rating, despite difficult atmospheric conditions. Investigations on the correlations between fouling gradients in the compressor and atmospheric conditions are also presented. The evaluation of the results demonstrate the importance of implementing an optimised regime of on line and off line washing in the preventive turbine maintenance program. It will improve the plant profitability by reducing the costs of energy production.

300 MW Combined-Cycle Plant With Integrated Coal Gasification

1984 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf H. Kehlhofer
Keyword(s):  
Power Generation ◽  
Power Plant ◽  
Gas Turbines ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
District Heating ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Liquid Fuels ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
The Individual

In the past 15 years the combined-cycle (gas/steam turbine) power plant has come into its own in the power generation market. Today, approximately 30 000 MW of power are already installed or being built as combined-cycle units. Combined-cycle plants are therefore a proven technology, showing not only impressive thermal efficiency ratings of up to 50 percent in theory, but also proving them in practice and everyday operation (1) (2). Combined-cycle installations can be used for many purposes. They range from power plants for power generation only, to cogeneration plants for district heating or combined cycles with maximum additional firing (3). The main obstacle to further expansion of the combined cycle principle is its lack of fuel flexibility. To this day, gas turbines are still limited to gaseous or liquid fuels. This paper shows a viable way to add a cheap solid fuel, coal, to the list. The plant system in question is a 2 × 150 MW combined-cycle plant of BBC Brown Boveri with integrated coal gasification plant of British Gas/Lurgi. The main point of interest is that all the individual components of the power plant described in this paper have proven their worth commercially. It is therefore not a pilot plant but a viable commercial proposition.

A GCC Power Plant With Methanol Storage for Intermediate-Load Duty

1990 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Paffenbarger
Keyword(s):  
Power Plant ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Production Costs ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Electricity Production ◽  
Fuel Prices ◽  
Electrical Demand ◽  
Integrated Facility ◽  
Plant Configuration

This paper describes the design and performance of a coal gasification combined-cycle power plant with an integrated facility for producing and storing methanol (GCC/methanol power plant). The methanol is produced at a steady rate and is burned in the combined-cycle to generate additional power during periods of peak electrical demand. The GCC/methanol plant provides electricity generation and energy storage in one coal-based facility. It is of potential interest to electric utilities seeking to meet intermediate-load electrical demand on their systems. The plant configuration is determined by means of an economic screening study considering capital and fuel costs over a range of cycling duties (load factors). Estimated levelized electricity production costs indicate that a GCC/methanol plant could be of economic interest as premium fuel prices increase relative to coal. The plant could potentially be of interest for meeting daily peak demands for periods of eight hours or less. The conceptual plant configuration employs a Texaco gasifier and a Lurgi methanol synthesis plant. Plant performance is estimated at peak and baseload output levels. No unusual design or operational problems were identified.

Degradation Effects on Combined Cycle Power Plant Performance: Part 1 — Gas Turbine Cycle Component Degradation Effects

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Zwebek ◽  
P. Pilidis
Keyword(s):  
Gas Turbine ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Plant Design ◽  
Turbine Performance ◽  
Fortran Code ◽  
Steam Turbine Plant ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
Gas Turbine Exhaust ◽  
Topping Cycle

This paper describes the effects of degradation of the main gas path components of the gas turbine topping cycle on the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plant performance. Firstly the component degradation effects on the gas turbine performance as an independent unit are examined. It is then shown how this degradation is reflected on a steam turbine plant of the CCGT and on the complete Combined Cycle plant. TURBOMATCH, the gas turbine performance code of Cranfield University was used to predict the effects of degraded gas path components of the gas turbine have on its performance as a whole plant. To simulate the steam (Bottoming) cycle, another Fortran code was developed. Both codes were used together to form a complete software system that can predict the CCGT plant design point, off-design, and deteriorated (due to component degradation) performances. The results show that the overall output is very sensitive to many types of degradation, specially in the turbine of the gas turbine. Also shown is the effect on gas turbine exhaust conditions and how this affects the steam cycle.

Combined Heat and Power Plants Based on Mirror Heat Exchange Brayton Cycles

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Passarella ◽  
Gianmario L. Arnulfi
Keyword(s):  
Heat Recovery ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
Combined Heat And Power ◽  
Combined Cycle ◽  
Plant Performance ◽  
Higher Power ◽  
Combined Cycle Plant ◽  
Gas Turbine Exhaust ◽  
Interesting Alternative ◽  
Top Cycle

As gas turbine exhaust gases leave the turbine at high temperature, heat recovery is often carried out in a combined heat-and-power system or in the steam section of a combined-cycle plant. An interesting alternative is a mirror cycle, which involves coupling together a direct Brayton top cycle and an inverted Brayton bottom cycle; this results in significantly higher power output and efficiency, though at the expense of added complexity. The research illustrated in the present paper was based on two in-house codes and aimed to analyze different plant configurations, one of which was a heat recovery (regenerative) top cycle with the heat exchanger hot side located between the top and bottom cycle turbo-expanders. The authors call this configuration a distorting mirror, as the hot side may not be at atmospheric pressure. A parametric analysis was carried out in order to optimize plant performance vs. pressure levels. Simulation showed that, at the design point, very good performance is obtained: efficiency close to 0.50 with plant cost (per megawatt) about half vs. combined-cycle plants. An off-design analysis showed that the mirror plant is a little more sensitive to changes in load than a simple Brayton, single-shaft GT.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document