Comparative study on Sub-critical and Super Critical Power Cycles Ratings: (2)|Views: 20,410|Likes: 140 Published by Chandra Shekhar

See More Comparative study on Sub-critical and Super Critical Power CyclesGeneral This appendix addresses the comparative issues of sub-critical and supercritica l power cycles. The critical pressure point of water and steam is 22.1 MPa abs, belowthis pressure it is called sub-critical pressure and above this pressure it is called as supercritical pressure. In the supercritical region, co-existence o f water and steam is not present, therefore in the absence of steam/water mixtur e, the recirculating boiler technology adopted forsubcritical pressure could not be used. This was the key to theadvancement of cycle efficiency through the ado ption of economic andreliable once-through supercritical boilers. Historical Perspective of Supercritical Pressure Plants The drive for enhancing the efficiency of generating plants in anenvironmentall y friendly manner has been realized mainly throughadvancing the steam conditions , i.e. increasing pressure andtemperature. This was realized due to dramatic im provements in materials technologyfor boilers and steam turbines since the early 1980s for higher steamtemperature, and a better understanding of power plant wa ter chemistry,have led to an increased use of supercritical steam cycles in inte rnationalmarkets. Development of Supercritical Boilers In the 1950s when the USA showed interest in using advanced steamconditions, the two major holders of the supercritical boiler technology were Sulzer of Switzerla nd and Siemens in Germany. Sulzer boilers wereknown as monotube boilers whereas Si emens the licensor of the Bensononce-through boiler technology. The USA boiler m anufacturers thereforeturned to Europe and signed technology licenses with the E uropeans. It was this USA push that spawned the majority of the supercritical bo ilersthat operate in the world today. By comparison the number of supercritical plants of direct European origin is modest, although thenumbers have grown in re cent years. Combustion Engineering signed with Sulzer and Babcock and Wilcox and Foster Wheeler had anagreement with Siemens. Riley Stoker also built supercriti cal pressureunits. Between 1957 and 1960 six supercritical plants were commissioned inthe USA using the European knowledge but with USA additions. Someambitious steam conditions, up to 5000 psi, (34.5 MPa) and 1200F(650C) most with double reheat, were adopted. A number of these plantsshould be put in the category of pioneering plants as they were not acommercial success.Design developments were undertaken in USA and in the mid sixties the second generation of supercritical units was being commissioned. Through their J apaneselicensees supercritical units of the USA design were constructed in Japan . Babcock &Wilcox s once-though boiler was called the Universal Pressure (UP) boiler , suitable for both sub and supercritical pressures. In USA from 1963 to 1970 about half of the sales of utility fossil fuel firedpla nt were designed for supercritical pressure. From 1971 to 1974 it hadfallen to a round 25%. The reasons for the reduction were: the poorer availability of the supe rcritical pressure plant (newcontrol concept, larger units, pressurized firing) t he poorer load changing and start-up flexibility of the supercriticalplant at a time when the fossil fired plant needed to complementthe growing number of nucle ar plants which were operated at baseload. Since the 1960s experience improvemen ts in design of thesupercritical boilers were made such that in the 1980s the ne wplants could achieve similar availabilities to the sub-critical plants.(see 607 days (continuous) running , Electrical World June 1987). The number of supercritic al plants sold in the USA in the decade starting 1965 amounted to 125 units. In total there are now some 150 units in service in the USA,the reduction in the rate of their installation being in part a result s lowdown in the growthof demand and the trend towards gas fired combined cycle pl

ants. In the 1960s a number of the US type of supercritical boilers wereinstalled in J apan with the Japanese licensees of the US boiler makersbeing involved. B&W were associated with Babcock/Hitachi, CombustionEngineering with Mitsubishi (MHI), a nd Foster Wheeler with lHI. Becauseof their high fuel costs the Japanese had a g reater incentive than the USto adopt the advanced cycle conditions. Consequently a very highproportion of units installed in Japan have been supercritical units and within the following two decades the Japanese had advanced the designof sup ercritical pressure boilers further than their USlicensees/associates. The former USSR also embarked on a major installation program of supercritical units commencing around 1960. Around the mid to late 1980s when the pressure from the greenhousegas issue bega n to be felt, Germany and Denmark embarked on a majorprogram of advancing the ef ficiency of the conventional steam cycle forcoal firing. This impetus may have b een spurred on by the threat of competition from the new power generation techno logies which werebeing developed at that time, integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC) and pressurized fluidized bed boilers (PFB).As can be seen from the above the countries which have the most experience with supercritical pressure cycles are USA, (although most of the uni tsinstalled are of an out-dated technology) Japan, Germany and Denmark. There arealso a number of units in Korea, China and a lesser number els ewhere. Thus Germany, Japan and Denmark have a number of modern plants which cou ld be described as world s best practice in terms of efficiencyand operational flexi bility. It is natural that the major advancement inthe technology has occurred i n those countries where the high cost of fossil fuels is a major driver. In the case of Germany and Japan they alsohave the necessary industrial base and the ma jor boiler and turbinedesigners who have the resources to develop advanced desig ns. In theEuropean scene the major players are Alstom and Siemens on bothboilers and turbines, and Deutsche Babcock on boiler design. In the caseof Japan all th e usual heavy industry manufacturers are involved, MHIand Hitachi with both boil er and turbines, and Toshiba on turbines, IHIon boilers. The major USA manufactu rers also offer supercritical boilersof a similar design to those offered by the German and Japanesemanufactures.Korean and Chinese manufacturers also offer sup ercritical boilers underthe licensees from European and Japanese manufacturers.I n India, very recently BHEL made technology collaborations with Alstomfor Superc ritical Boiler and with Siemens for Steam Turbine Generator.NTPC started to cons truct first supercritical plant (3 x 660MW) in Indianear Sipat village in the st ate of Chhattisgarh. Supercritical Boilers With supercritical pressure boiler there is not only a need to increase the wall thickness of the pressure components and also use advancedmaterials but there i s also a need to adopt a type of boiler which isdifferent to the type normally u sed for sub-critical pressures. This needis related to the type of technology th at can be used in the evaporationcircuit of the boiler. It is this need for a di fferent boiler technology whichis the critical requirement in the adoption of su percritical pressure. As stated earlier, at supercritical pressures, unlike at sub-criticalpressures, there is no co-existence of the two phases, water and steam. Therefore the stand ard circulation system, which relies on the densitydifference between steam and water to drive the circulation for coolingthe furnace wall tubes, and to separat e the steam from the water toenable superheating to take place in the superheate r tubes, is no longersuitable. Instead a once-through type of system must be use d. Supercritical Steam Turbines Unlike the boiler plant the design of the turbine plant is little affected bythe

use of supercritical pressure. Of course the high pressure cylindermust be desi gned to withstand the higher pressure and temperature andalso the reheater press ure and temperature will be higher, generally inproportion to the increase in th e main steam pressure.With supercritical pressures, because of the greater steam pressurerange in the turbine from inlet through to the condenser, there is grea terscope for including an extra stage or stages of feedwater heating. In somepla nts the top high pressure heater, which heats the return water to thefinal feed wa ter temperature, takes its bled steam from a tapping on theHP cylinder rather th an from the usual position at the outlet of the HPcylinder. This enables an even higher feedwater temperature to beachieved and thereby provide a further increa se in cycle efficiency. Typical feedwater temperatures are around 290C to 275C com pared toaround 235C to 250C for sub-critical plants.With improved cycle efficiency , i.e. a lower heat rate, there will be a reduction in heat rejected to the condenser. There is a multiplying effect for a givenimprovement in heat rate. For example, if the heat rate is reduced by say 3.5% due to theuse of supercritical pressure and higher steam temperatures, the heat rejected to thecondenser is reduced by about 6.4%. The percentage reduction in the sizing of the condenser and coolingtowers is ne arly two times the percentage reduction in heat rate. Inaddition the water usage for a wet cooling tower will also reduce in thesame proportion. Efficiency Gains It shall be noted that, as the pressure is increased, so the gains made byincrea sing the steam temperatures are marginally greater. Other factors which affect t he cycle efficiency are the number of reheats, single ordouble, the condenser pr essure, the number of feedwater heaters, whether there is a feedwater heater ble d steam point part-way through the HP turbine, pressure drop through the reheater, etc. Therefore thefigures sh own in the above graph must be regarded as typical only.When the supercritical p lant having steam conditions of about 25 MPaand 566/566C is compared with modern sub-critical plants whichoperate at around 16 MPa 538/538C, an efficiency improve ment of about 3.5% is expected accordingly to the above graph. Environmental Benefits Gains in efficiency are reflected directly in the environmental benefits,i.e. sa vings in coal consumption that means lower amount of CO2, NOxand SO2 emission pe r kWh of power generated using efficientsupercritical plants.Comparative Costs(i ) Capital Costs The key issues arising from a comparison of a supercritical pres sureplant compared to a sub-critical plant of the same MW rating are: An increase in cycle efficiency occurs leading to reduction in mostflow quantities for a gi ven unit size. There is a reduction in the heat to steam and the heat rejected to the condenser and cooling towers. A similar steam flow rate, kg/s per MW generate d exists. Due tothe reduction in enthalpy of steam with higher pressure, and ahi gher feedwater temperature, the enthalpy rise in the boiler is lessthan for a su b-critical boiler. However with an increase in mainsteam and reheat temperature giving an increase in the enthalpypick-up, the specific steam flow kg/s per MW g enerated does notchange significantly compared to a sub-critical pressure plant. The higher pressures result in higher steam densities and lowervolume flows of s team in both the main steam and the reheatsystems. The higher pressure, the need for a once-though boilerand the above changes in the process variables leads to thefollowing effects in the design of the plant: Advanced and additional materia ls are required for containment of the higher pressure and temperature.