Fw: UK fleet-average CCGT load factors +efficiencies
Chris Hodrien
>> I don't know of any source of public data on the real operating patterns of individual CCGT stations or even total annual >> load factors, or even for groups thereof, in either UK or EU - does anyone else please?
>> Chris.
- sure, at least for annual CCGT load factors (and fleet average efficiency) look here :
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/statistics/publications/dukes/311-dukes-2010-ch5.pdf
Table 5.10, page 142 which shows annual GB CCGT load factors since 2005 :
Base page 139 table 5.6 has CCGT annual outputs, GB.
Para 5.39 and 5.41 have associated commentary, para 5.41 noting also that GB CCGT efficiency has remained around the 46-47 per cent mark over the last few years, with little new (more efficient) capacity coming online prior to 2009. The efficiency of nuclear stations has been on a rising trend in recent years as older, less efficient stations have closed, with 2009 showing the highest efficiency yet, of 39.0 per cent. The efficiencies presented in the accompanying table are calculated using gross calorific values to obtain the energy content of the fuel inputs.
From:
engines-gas-die...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:engines-gas-die...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Hodrien
Sent: 10 December 2010 17:23
To: star...@yahoo.com; Claverton AB MAIN
GROUP; engines-gas-die...@googlegroups.com; Nick Balmer; dave
andrews
Subject: Re: Use of US
public data on CCGT efficiencies to infer EU efficiencies
Gross CV basis for GT plant efficiencies in US literature?? - 'news to me'! (e.g see GT World Mag, ASME GT conf's....)
The GCV/LCV mis-match is not between UK and USA, it's between LCV used for GT's and engines (in both), vs. GCV used for coal and oil thermal plant (in both). The LCV basis for GT's was inherited from recip' engines practice and originated very long ago from the engineers that build the things, rather than use them, versus the power Co users have usually purchased their fuels on a GCV basis.
Given the very large climatic (latitude) range across both the USA and the EU, and the equally big swings between summer and winter temps (or between seawater, wet towers and dry cooling) I'm amazed that you (or the quoted expert) can make a sweeping generalisation like 1 deg C. Real life is much more complex: e.g. New York climate is more different from Arizona than from UK.
The lower fleet average efficiency of US CCGT plants is not so much climate related, it's a deliberate design decision (Capex vs. efficiency) on the HRSG section due to the lower real fuel prices over there over last 20-30 years -their fuel prices are about where UK was back in 1989. I don't think GE and Westinghouse would have bothered developing most of their higher efficiency GT's without the injection of lots of US DOE money (i.e 'technology-push' rather than 'market-pull').
The problem of CCGTs being operated in mid-merit in the real market, and the resulting efficiency impact of frequent start-up, part load and shut-down, is a real-world, big issue in CCGT real 'fleet 'efficiency and will get much worse in future on 'both sides of the pond' with the impact of intermittent renewables, as noted by Poyry study et al (these unpredictable inefficiency losses have to be counted against the net CO2 savings from the wind plant in any realistic 'grid-wide' calculation). Due to commercial confidentiality in competitive markets, I don't know of any source of public data on the real operating patterns of individual CCGT stations or even total annual load factors, or even for groups thereof, in either UK or EU - does anyone else please?
Chris.
----- Original Message -----
From: star...@yahoo.com
Cc: C Hodrien
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: Use of US publicly available data on CCGT eficiencies to infer likely efficiency of European data. US struggles to get above 50% LHV in service
Dear Dave
The GE gas turbine document does not open up properly.Can you send it out in a different format, please?
One issue about the USA is that I believe that electrical efficiencies are quoted using the gross calorific value of the fuel. In Europe the tendency is to use the net, which makes a big difference for natural gas CCGT.
Another concern is that average temperatures are higher, expecially for cooling water.This reduces coal fired power plant efficiencies in the USA by about 1 % compared to Northern Europe.I am not sure how temperatures will affect CCGTs...It will have some adverse effect on the steam plant section and also on the gas turbine unless inlet cooling is used.
Best regards
Fred
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: dave andrews <tynin...@gmail.com>
Subject: Use of US publicly available data on CCGT eficiencies to infer likely efficiency of European data. US struggles to get above 50% LHV in service
To: "Claverton AB MAIN GROUP" <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>, engines-gas-die...@googlegroups.com, "Nick Balmer" <balmer....@gmail.com>, "Starrfred" <star...@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 10 December, 2010, 14:21Dear All,
herewith publicly available ccgt efficiency in the US and some comments from an expert, on how data could be modified to form a surrogate for European CCGT data which, oddly, is not publicly available.
Any comments on the corrections suggested?
--Dave Andrews
UK + 44 (0) 755 265 9166
+ 44 (0) 1225 837978+ 31 (0) 617864028
+ 31 (0) 224 565 448
Dave....................
It appears that no other Member states than the UK accurately record thermal Efficiency of their power station fleet. However, there are published sources of data. These include data on CCGT operation in the United States and the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics (DUKES).
DUKES covers the operation of some >28 GWe of CCGT major producers plant in the UK.
Although there has been significant additional CCGT plant installed across Europe especially in Italy (>21 GW) and Spain (>23 GW) neither of these countries publish thermal efficiency data and the UK still has the largest CCGT fleet.
Thermal efficiency numbers need to be obtained per unit of actual production over a specific period (probably annual) and details of the specific installed technology and this would allow benchmarking against data from other countries for the same technology including the USA to ensure that the numbers are realistic and accurate. Clearly this will not be an easy task especially to verify that data meets the directive requirements of operational use under realistic conditions.
............................................................
Even if data is not verifiable it is very important that a reasonableness test or independent checking of the data occurs as seen in the DUKES statistics errors can easily happen. After lengthy dialogue by Cogen Europe and UK Combined Heat and Power Association the Department of Energy and Climate Change acknowledged that there was an issue with CCGT thermal efficiencies. The 2010 publication corrected the data and revised it downwards significantly for 2005 to 2008.
Typical European CCGTs are operated in mid-merit and reference efficiencies need to reflect the efficiency impact of frequent start-up, part load and shut-down of these units. Consequently it is not possible that the final efficiency will be close at all to the manufacturers' published LHV data.
Ventyx USA data
In attachment 6 we have listed all the US CCGT that were constructed in 2005 or later and the definition of construction is that the plant's prime mover - Gas Turbine was installed and we have assumed that effectively means that the first year of operation is the following year.
No plants achieve a net (LHV) efficiency greater than 50% even after adjustment for average climatic conditions.
(See attached file: USA 2006-2009 Plant Level Data v2.xls)
Below is a LEADING POWER CONSULTANT''s response on the HRSGs - their experience is consistent with our understanding - bottom line, there is no / little difference in HRSG and steam cycle efficiency between US and European CCGTs other than the inherent difference driven by the 50 HZ and 60 HZ GTG unit scale
It appears to be 0.65% higher on New and Clean brochure values depending on which machine you used in Europe. So to be conservative you could add that to USA numbers to show surrogate European Numbers. Please note the Adjusted numbers in above spreadsheet do not include this additional 0.65% increase to take into account the 50 Hz vs 60 Hz
For the advanced F class or higher CCGTs, industry both in the US and the EU use 3 pressure HRSG / steam systems, which are the CCGTs being used for bench marking the efficiency coefficients, and that only for the smaller, less efficient CCGTs, ( 7E and 9E technology) developed primarily in the past, both in the EU and the US have CCGTs has used 2 pressure level HRSG / steam systems due to the inherent characteristics of the gas turbines.
"Your understanding is correct for F and G Class machines--they are usually 3-pressure. I'm doing some checking on GE F plants, but I can't think of any that aren't 3-pressure. Most of the plants built from 1998, 1999 on are F Class. The older E Class plants may be 2-pressure and there have been some 7EA plants recently built that were 2-pressure."
Siemens will use a Benson Boiler Design for their fast start F4 and now
F5 plants, which you probably already know. The Benson is a once-through boiler, but it is a three-pressure, reheat design. Siemens will include a 3-pressure HRSG on a standard base-loaded plant.
Mitsubishi's F and G Class plants are 3-pressure.
Alstom's F Class GE-24 plants (42 units installed in the US, all single-shaft) all use a once-through boiler design. The Alstom GT-24 CCGT plants are "designed as a dual pressure reheat boiler, generating high-pressure steam, low pressure steam and reheat steam for delivery to the STG.
There are at least 10 of these GT-24 units in Texas (IPA).
We have recently done several 2x1 7EA CCGTs, which are typically 2-pressure, non-reheat for Navasota Energy. We were the engineer on their 500 MW 4x2 7EA Colorado Bend, Wharton, TX and Quail Run located in Odessa, TX, also a 500 MW 4x2 7EA. These were grey market machines.
GE brochure below for reference on Heat rates achieved in CCGTs.
(See attached file: GE gasturbine_cc_products.pdf)
Regards
N
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail from your system.
This e-mail has been scanned for malicious content but the internet is inherently insecure and EDF Energy plc cannot accept any liability for the integrity of this message or its attachments. No employee or agent of EDF Energy plc or any related company is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of EDF Energy plc or any related company by e-mail.
All e-mails sent and received by EDF Energy plc are monitored to ensure compliance with the company's information security policy. Executable and script files are not permitted through the EDF Energy plc mail gateway. EDF Energy does not accept or send mails above 30 Mb in size.
EDF Energy plcRegistered in England and Wales No. 2366852
Registered Office: 40 Grosvenor Place, London SW1X 7EN
dave andrews
dave andrews
Chris,From DUKES 2010 - the UK CCGT fleet average thermal efficiency is 46.7 % HHV at 62.8 % load-factor in 2009 (about 15 years after the dash for gas generation). The resulting specific emissions for 'gas' (CCGTs - and OCGTs ?) were 405 g/kWh in 2009 (excluding offshore gas production and future leaky long-distance pipelines, or LNG, but those are other stories).Do you have an educated guess as to the thermal efficiency (HHV) and specific emissions of new / next generation CCGTs under considerable load-following duties (say 40 % load-factor in 2025 rather than 62.8 % in 2009) ? Would it be the latest GE aero-derivative LMS series at 46 % LHV (ie 41.4 % HHV *) in load-following simple-cycle (see below), or load-following in Combined Cycle at 54 % LHV (ie about 48.6 % HHV) ?By the way, reading the electricity chapter of DUKES 2010 it does appear to me to be giving more detailed / accessible information than in previous years. In terms of 'generation' wrt to 'supplied' (or gate output) note that the 'own use' of electricity by the power stations themselves represent the following % of the electricity they generate :CCGT about 2 %Coal about 5 % (noticeable difference)Nuclear about 9 % (quite a lot really)Table 5 A gives the specific emissions of electricity SUPPLIED by coal plant at 915 g/kWh and 'gas' at 405 g/kWhThanksNeil* Methane: HHV LHV 55.5 MJ/kg 50.0 MJ/kg - so multiply HHV by 0.9 to get LHV------------------GE LMS-100 aeroderivative natural gas turbine now has DLE-2 DLN dry combustor option
Houston, October 11, 2010 — GE’s most efficient, simple-cycle aeroderivative gas turbine, the LMS100, is now being offered with new dry low emissions (DLE-2) technology.
“Using new DLE-2 technology, our new LMS100-PB model allows customers requiring low NOx emissions to meet the below 25 PPM requirement by eliminating a water injection system, while maintaining best-in-class performance for simple-cycle, dry, peaking and intermediate duty,” said Darryl Wilson, vice president — aeroderivative gas turbines for GEPower & Water. “In addition, output is 101 MW of block power, with 46 percent efficiency — about 10 percent above the nearest competitor in its class.”
The LMS100 was introduced in 2003 and is the most extensive collaboration of design and manufacturing in GE’s history. It features 10-minute full power starts with load following capability, operational and fuel flexibility and has 46 percent efficiency in simple cycle, which is 10 percent greater than GE’s highest efficiency gas turbine on the market today, the LM6000. In combined cycle, the efficiency is 54 percent. A key reason for the high efficiency is the use of off-engine intercooling technology within the compression section of the gas turbine.
The LMS100 can be used in simple-cycle, combined heat and power and combined-cycle applications for power generation and is available for mechanical drive applications. [news to me! -big drive! -CH]
It offers characteristics not available in other 8- to 16-MW class (80-160??!) gas turbines today, including high part-power efficiency, cycling capability without increased maintenance cost, low 'lapse rate' [performance decline] for 'hot-day' power and a modular design for ease of maintenance and high availability.
-----------------
----
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.
--
Dave Andrews
Claverton Energy Groupwww.claverton-energy.com
dave andrews
Dave,I asked myself the same question and 'concluded' (assumed / informed speculation !) that it was on generator output. In any event the works use for gas is a minimal 2 %.But its one of those specific / niggling questions that usually tends to crop up when reading DUKES...So I have just checked further and it is for GENERATION - not gate outputSee Table 5.6, page 139. Coal for 2009 was :Fuel (primary coal) used 277,051 TWh/y and generation was 100,857 TWh/y. The coal thermal efficiency is given as 36.4 % in 2009.and 227,051 x 36.4 % = 100,846 TWh/ySo GENERATION has it.Neil
--