highly efficient gas turbines

[dave andrews]

Why not pursue it with Alstom then?? I have contacts???

you can discuss this with Tzimas when you are next over!!!

On 8 November 2011 17:44, star...@yahoo.com <star...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Dave

 

I am grateful for you passing on this information which was part of the basis for our evaluation. But the man from Alstom says nothing about the use of intercooling and dismisses steam cooling of turbine blades as not being compatible with flexibility.   

 

The very advanced plant we (Starr and Cormos) were conceiving is really intended to form part of an IGCC in which either hydrogen or SNG were produced as the fuel gas for the gas turbine. The concept is that the gasifier runs at full output all the time, but when the demand for electricity falls, the hydrogen or the SNG is diverted into the European pipeline system.

 

The "demand" for electricity from the plant is partly dictated by what consumers and industry want and partly by what is available from renewable sources.

 

The should be no real flexibility issue from operation of the CCGT.......The ancillary power demand on IGCC sites is very high, so that there is always a reasonably high demand on the gas turbine.....There is no two shifting with the plant being shut down at night. Hence steam cooled gas turbine blades are quite practical.

 

There is a JRC Petten report which discusses the flexibility issue in general terms, written in 2005 by Starr, Tzimas and Peteves.  

 

Finally back in 2004,  I asked the recently retired head of industrial gas turbines from GE, what could be achieved using intercooling, reheat and steam cooling, plus best HRSG practice. His answer..... 74% LHV.  As it happens, that was exactly my rule of thumb guess too!   

 

Fred   

 

 

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: large-power-conventional-power-...@googlegroups.com; Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Diesel+GT group <engines-gas-die...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 8 November 2011, 10:26
Subject: Re: Costs of ccgt, CCS, rankine cycle

Fred, this guy from a major CCGT manufacturer made these comments on your proposals. Dave

 

"...Dear David

thank you very much for the report.

The efficiency value below seems to be on the high side. Todays Combined Cycles achieve around 61% gross efficiency. With advanced cooling and materials, it might be possible to increase this value by 2-3%. Fyi, MHI is targeting 62-65% efficiency with funding from the Japanese Government under the "National Project".

Our xyz with sequential combustion already has a reheat concept that is proposed below by mr Starr. This is how it can maintain combined-cycle operation at 20% combined-cycle load. At this operation point, only the first combustor (EV) is in operation, the second combustion chamber (SEV) is shut down. The steam turbine remains in operation for fast loading up to baseload, in order to provide 350 MW spinning reserve within 15 minutes.
Steam cooled blading is a concept that was used by GE for the H-class, but this did not go forward. It might offer a better cooling efficiency, but is technically challenging and harms the flexibility of the gas turbine, an aspect that will become more and more important. The latest GT that has been announced by GE (9FB) is again air-cooled.
I am not aware of catalytic combustion in Gas Turbines so far.

kind regards

Mickail............."

On 7 November 2011 19:00, star...@yahoo.com <star...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Dave

 

Have you never heard of design inertia? Manufacturers never want to make major investments if they can go on selling the same old product.

 

It would be more useful for the JRC to support a programme identifying what really needs to be done to bring my type of ideas to fruition.

 

Everything that I have suggested has been around in textbooks since about 1947.

 

One of the great shames of recent "market dominated" years is the take over of  Brown Boveri in Switzerland, by Alstom, who mot only built the first industrial gas turbine 1938, having started investigations in 1907, know more about the application of intercooling and reheat to gas turbine cycles than anyone else.

 

Fred  

 

 

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: large-power-conventional-power-...@googlegroups.com; Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; Claverton Diesel+GT group <engines-gas-die...@googlegroups.com>; darren watson <darren...@corelia.co.uk>; Paul Darley <pa...@energyfromwaste.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011, 16:21
Subject: Re: Costs of ccgt, CCS, rankine cycle

Yes...but this is a major manufacturer saying that by 2030 the best they can be doing is 63% LCV?  This is with test rigs, laboratories, and the co operation of utility users.

 

You say you can do 70% by 20025.

 

Do you know something they don't

 

Why not contact them with your ideas?

 

Dave

On 7 November 2011 17:14, star...@yahoo.com <star...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Dave

 

I never used the word soon......I said that that calculations showed that an advanced gas turbine using intercooling, reheat, and steam cooled turbine blades would have an efficiency of 70%. The 70% efficincy is made up of 54% from the gas turbine, and another 16% from the steam turbine.

 

If the JRC was doing what it could be doing, it would be looking at advanced cycle concepts, On the basis of this it would be encouraging manufacturers both financially and politically to do the background R&D which is necessary......In Europe we simply do not do what USA Government agencies support in terms of long range technical development.

 

The advanced CCGT I am promoting could be commercial by 2025.

 

Fred

 

From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
To: Claverton AB MAIN GROUP <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>; combined-heat-and-power-cogene...@googlegroups.com; Claverton- Large Powerplant Web-Group <large-power-conventional-power-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 7 November 2011, 14:37
Subject: Costs of ccgt, CCS, rankine cycle

 

Fred...This is from a major  manufacturer of power plants..... do not see how this squares with your assumption that CCGT will soon be 70% LCV?

 

Dave

 

Subject: Re:  costs

 

Dear David

this June we have published a paper at the PowerGen Europe regarding a cost assessment of CCS for fossil power generation.
This public paper also includes the data we have used for this study, that might also be interesting for you.



Table 2 contains key performance and EPC cost data:                      
 

For clarification:
In Europe with a 1-on-1 Single-shaft configuration (a plant with one GT and one ST) and direct cooling we have assumed the following:

                                        2015        2020        2030
        Net Output         MWe net        600        650        700
        Net Efficiency        %                61%        62%        63%
        EPC cost        Euro/kW net        580        565        550

I hope this helps you for your assessment.

kind regards,
Christian

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

--

Dave Andrews

K.E.N.T.
+ 44 (0)  755 265 9166

+ 31 (0)  631 926 885
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978

 

 

[star...@yahoo.com]

Dear Dave

 

I am more interested in getting the concept reviewed " objectively" and also helping Calin Cormos get some advancement.

 

I will bring it up when I am over there.

 

For the present, I don't want things to go any further.