You are on page 1of 13

Gas Engine Vs.

Gas Turbine driver


Specific case study for PM3 Compressor Station project

1 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Background
Meeting held between Wrtsil and PV Gas on 21st February 2012. Meeting was based on earlier discussions focused on comparing driver (and compression) techniques for PV Gas project for PM3 gas booster compressor station, which belongs to Ca Mau GPP project. At the meeting was shown common level comparison between different driver (Gas Engine and Gas Turbine & compressor techniques (Centrifugal Vs Reciprocating). Presentations were also shared with PV Gas later on. As a result of the meeting PV Gas shared FEED design material with Wrtsil. In that material Gas Turbine was chosen for a driver without any exact conclusion supporting the decision even though some of the disadvantages of Gas Turbine driver where clearly shown, for example, poor efficiency at full and part load (page 9/10 of doc 104012-10-CA-001). Based on the material and discussion, it was agreed that Wrtsil will give an Proposal with clear scope of supply for the project via MICO (EPC contractor) with Gas Engine + Centrifugal compressor, therefore the modifications to current design will be as minimal as possible. The other major goal discussed during the meeting was that Wrtsil will provide case specific comparison with the benefits of using Gas Engine instead of Gas Turbine as a driver of centrifugal compressor in this project.

2 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Framework for comparison


To evaluate the cost of compression for PM3 Gas Compression project, Wrtsil conducted a life-cycle feasibility evaluation on different alternatives Wrtsil 20V34SG Gas Engine driven centrifugal compressor ( 1 unit) Gas Turbine driven centrifugal compressor ( 1 unit)
Later on comes also additional evaluation for Wrtsil 20V34SG Gas Engine driven reciprocating compressor

The gas turbine performance on part load was evaluated using available Gas Turbine data. Speed control performance was evaluated based on attachment Siemens SGT400 curves, which describes common GT efficiency drop when speed is changed Issues related to taxes, duties, insurance costs etc. are for the purpose of this study left out Gas analysis, max flow & inlet/outlet pressures are those what Wrtsil has received from PV Gas

Even though all efforts deemed reasonable have been taken to ensure the validity of the figures for Gas Turbines, no guarantees can be given with respect to this

3 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WDFS/ Saara Kujala

Typical weather in Ca Mau

For evaluation, info from FEED design document + weather conditions in Vietnam have been used According to following table was assumed 27.5 Celsius & 85% RH with 100m altitude for annual average

4 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Efficiency
One of the key advantage of Gas Engine compared against Gas Turbine is extremely higher efficiency, on not only full load but also more importantly on part load In compression driver size class of 9-10 MW, typically the net efficiency that can be achieved at site ISO conditions is near 46 % at 100% load with Wrtsil Gas Engines State of the art Gas Turbine efficiencies in the same range at full load at ISO conditions are more near 33-35%, and suffer a lot at higher ambient temperatures and also at part load Taking into account site conditions and the aging of the turbines (2%), means that they are heavily oversized for the duty, what they are designed to

5 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Gas Turbine ambient derating Vs speed and load control

Power output at turbine coupling, MW

As known Gas Turbines are controlled with air inlet temperature therefore it is also clear that straight after when temperature goes up from ISO conditions, the de-rating will start Gas Turbine ISO @ 15C, sea level, 60% RH Gas Engine ISO @ 25C , 100m, 30% RH

Power turbine speed, rpm

Specific heat input, KJ/Kwh Engine inlet temperature ,C

6 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Common assumptions
Gas price (LHV) Gas LHV Evaluation span Driving hours Site conditions: Temperature annual average Altitude Relative Humidity = 8.5 USD/MMBtu = 36 600 kJ/Nm3 = 20 - 25 years = 8200 hour/year

= 27.5 Celsius = 100m = 85%

7 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Compression power demand at given values


COMPRESSOR POWER DEMANDS WITH DIFFERENT POINTS A A27.5 B C Disch P, barG 86.23 86.23 86.23 86.23 Inlet P, barG 31.92 31.92 31.92 43.89 Throttled inlet P Inlet T c 38 27.5 25 38 Rpm Kw Polytropic eff % 10625 9617 84.77 10369 9220 10307 9125 84.71 8524 6140 84.84 C27.5 86.23 43.89 27.5 8297 5860 D 86.23 43.89 25 8242 5792 84.73 E 61.3 31.92 38 9086 6135 83.25 E27.5 61.3 31.92 27.5 8834 5853 F 61.3 31.92 25 8774 5786 83.62 G 61.3 43.89 39.76 38 7438 3946 82.37 G27.5 61.3 43.89 38.6 27.5 7438 4016 H 61.3 43.89 38.32 25 7438 4032 83.16

Power Demand are clearly under 10MW in most driving points Therefore Wrtsil 20V34SG engine is optimal choice with 10MW ISO output, only point A has to be later confirmed Gas Turbines de-rate heavily with given values, possible choices for Gas Turbines could be: Solar Titan130, 15MW ISO Output or Siemens SGT400 with 13.5MW ISO Output

Comparison fuel consumption per hour


DRIVER EFFICIENCY AND FUEL CONSUMPTION A27.5 WRTSIL POWER NEED * SPEED EFFICIENCY FUEL CONSUMPTION [kW] [RPM] [%] [Nm3/h] 9408 732 44.31 2088 GAS LHV = C27.5 5980 586 43.66 1347 36600 kJ/Nm3 E27.5 5972 624 43.34 1355 G27.5 4098 525 43.13 935

GAS TURBINE POWER NEED [kW] SPEED [RPM] EFFICIENCY [%] FUEL CONSUMPTION [Nm3/h] *Gearbox losses included for Wrtsil

9220 8230 30.62 2962

5860 6585 25.01 2305

5853 7011 26.13 2203

4016 5903 21.67 1823

Wrtsil solutions efficiency is almost flat Gas turbine efficiency will drop heavily Wrtsil cannot guarantee anything else than own values. Anyhow, for Gas Turbine efficiency calculations has been used common tools and info from the manufacturers

9 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Yearly Fuel costs


CASE A27.5 = stage 2 Fuel gas Cost [Nm3/year] [USD] 17 125 010 4 964 540 24 286 280 7 040 593 CASE E27.5 = stage 1 Fuel gas Cost [Nm3/year] [USD] 11 113 892 3 221 917 18 066 515 5 237 483

Wrtsil 20V34SG Gas Turbine (e.g. Solar Titan130)

Assumed 8200hour/year, so Gas Turbine & Gas Engine & Compressor and auxiliary maintence is clearly reduced from hours. Gas price assumed to be 8.5 USD/MMBtu

Savings by Wrtsil solution

2.07 Million USD/Year

2.01 Million USD/Year

In stage 1 using of Wrtsil solution saves at 27.5 C gas inlet/ambient conditions at least over 2 Million USD annually! In stage two the difference is in same level but cumulative numbers bigger. Loading is better in this case. At higher temperature, efficiency difference will be higher and will increase the Wrtsil solutions fuel savings. PAYBACK time of Wrtsil solution is very low
10 Wrtsil 09 March 2012 WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

OPEX costs for 20 years, without fuel Costs


Operation costs of Gas Engine Vs. Gas Turbine driven plants are in in similar levels More starts & stops, would cause decreasing of time between maintenance for Gas Turbines. However, not for Gas Engines. Figure shows normal cumulative cost in both cases. More specific and detailed comparision can be carried out, if needed

11

Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

N+1 Solution

More number of independent gas compression units would provide more flexibility in operation and maintenance. While one of the unit is under shutdown (scheduled or un-scheduled) the rest of the plant is available. N+1 approach is widely used in Oil & Gas sector, because usually the throughput is the most important factor for pipeline owners. Standby solution improves the over all availability and reliability of the plant Going for N+1 solution would mean even more savings in fuel gas cost because plant could be driven with highest possible efficiency all the time. Optimum solution for this particular project could be (2 working + 1 Stand by), which PV Gas may like to explore dependind on their priorities

12 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS

Conclusions
There is a potential to save approx 35 to 40 Million USD over the project life Cycle by using Wartsila solutions as compared to Gas Turbine There is major advantage in net efficiency on long term basis for Gas Engine driven compressor and a huge potential to save on fuel Running of Centrifugal Compressor with Gas Engine would mean a very short payback time for PVGas Standby unit solution (e.g 2+1) is adviced by Wrtsil for this and similar projects Wartsila recommends to verify and take a closer look at using Reciprocating compressors for this or similar projects in future.

13 Wrtsil

09 March 2012

WRTSIL POWER PLANTS