ميدقلا قاطلا ديلوت اطحم ريوطت€¦ · 2-technical comparison with existing...
TRANSCRIPT
Repowering of Old Power Stations
1
تطوير محطات توليد الطاقة القديمة
Prof. Jamal Othman & Eng. Ahmad Abbas
Amman, 4-5 Sep. 2016
Electricity Efficiency in Generation, Transmission, and Distribution of Electricity Systems
2 Contents
Energy in Jordan 1
Objectives 2
Methodology 3
Results 4
Main Findings 5
6 Future Work
The most serious challenge of development in Jordan
Till 2015, share of the renewable energies in total energy mix is less than 1%.
3
Energy in Jordan
Steam Units, 20.0%
Gas Turbine, 44.9%
Combined Cycle, 28.8%
Renewable, 0.3%
Industrial (Self-
generation), 6.0%
Other, 6.3%
Lack of Conventional
Energy Resources
Increasing Energy
Demand
Dependence on Imported Fossil-Fuel
Jordan has an ambitious target for current energy situation as mentioned in “Updated Master Strategy for Energy Sector in Jordan 2007 - 2020” presented by:
Solar energy is one of the renewable resources that have high potentials in the country. Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) is one of proven solar technologies in worldwide and highly applicable in Jordan.
4 Energy in Jordan
Reduce dependence
on imported energy
sources
Share of RE to reach
10% by 2020 (Solar and Wind Projects)
In this study; integration of one of CSP technologies with existing fossil-fueled power plant (Steam cycle) to be presented.
This integration presented by; substituting turbine’s steam extractions for feedwater heaters in power plant by introducing a CSP technology.
Importance of this work: 1. Improve the performance of existing Rankine cycle
2. Reduce fuel consumption and
3. Reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions.
5 Scope of Work and Objectives
The study will follow below main points:
6 Methodology
Select a Local Existing Power Plant The old 33 MW Unit at HTPP
Study Different CSP Technologies & Conduct a Comparison Between Them
Select One of CSP Technologies
Develop a Simple Simulation Model Based on Energy and Mass Balance
Conduct Technical, Economic and Environmental Aspects
What is CSP? (a Brief Concept of CSP)
C S P
Concentrated Solar Power
CSP is one of renewable solar energy technologies.
CSP technology simply is reflectors/absorber combination:
Reflectors >>> Mirrors ( Flat or curved mirrors )
Absorber >>> Dark receiver ( Tube or cavity )
7
8 Four CSP Technologies
9 Comparison of CSP Technologies PTC LFR CRS DE
Tracking 2D, one-axis 3D, two-axis
Capacity (MW) Up to 360 Up to 40 Up to 400 Up to 1.5
Working Fluid Water/Oil Water Water/Oil/Air H2/He
Fluid Temp. Range ( ̊C )
150 - 550 150 - 450 300 - 1000 250 - 700
Concentration Ratio 30 - 80 200 - 1000 1000 - 3000
Maturity Commercially Proven Pilot Projects
Relative Cost Low Very low High Very High
Storage Yes Shot-term Yes Not yet
Integration with fossil fuel PP
Yes and direct Yes Not planned
Example SEGS / USA (354 MW)
Puerto Errado / Spain (31.4 MW)
Ivanpah SEGS / USA (392 MW)
Maricopa / USA (1.5 MW)
10 Selected CSP Technology
Parabolic trough collector (PTC) with direct steam generation was the selected CSP technology; since PTC has below advantages:
1 Commercially proven CSP technology
2 Low cost (capital and O&M) with respect to CRS and DE
4 Possibility of direct steam generation (DSG)
5
3 Low relative area required
Providing temperatures and pressures close to those required by FWHs
11 Existing Steam (Rankine) Cycle for 33 MW Unit at HTPP
Heat balance diagram for 33 MW unit at HTPP
Six scenarios were assumed for FWHs solar replacement, this options summarized as in below table:
12 Assumed Replacement Options
No. of Option
Replacement Option
Steam Bleed Saved (ton/h)
Thermal Energy Rate (kcal/h)
1 FWH #1 6.88 4,939,152
2 FWH #1+2 13.09 9,220,947
3 FWH #1+2+3 19.81 13,627,923
4 FWH #4+5 6.88 4,232,450
5 FWH #5 1.38 814,200
6 All FWHs 26.69 17,860,373
When first replacement done; this is how will the cycle affected:
13 Results:
As no steam extraction to be occurred from turbine for FWH#1 then, more work output available for generator, as well as the efficiency of current cycle will be increased, and same procedure done for all FWHs replacement scenarios.
14
Results: Replacement of FWH #1:
And table below shows the conclusion of all replacement options:
Replacement Option
Steam Bleed Saved (ton/h)
Thermal Energy Rate (kcal/h)
Cycle Efficiency η (%)
w/o Solar 0 --- 29,175,210 33.63%
FWH #1 6.88 4,939,152 30,076,590 34.67%
FWH #1+2 13.09 9,220,947 30,716,004 35.41%
FWH #1+2+3 19.81 13,627,923 31,180,881 35.94%
FWH #4+5 6.88 4,232,450 29,362,220 33.84%
FWH #5 1.38 814,200 29,177,970 33.63%
All FWHs 26.69 17,860,373 31,315,484 36.10%
Before Solar After Solar Addition
Work output (kcal/h) 29,175,210 30,076,590 901,380 ↑
Cycle Efficiency 33.63% 34.67% 1.04% ↑
15
Turbine Output Work and Cycle Efficiency for Each Option
29,175
30,077
30,716
31,181
29,362
29,178
31,315
33.63%
34.67%
35.41%
35.94%
33.84%
33.63%
36.10%
33.00%
33.50%
34.00%
34.50%
35.00%
35.50%
36.00%
36.50%
37.00%
28,000
28,500
29,000
29,500
30,000
30,500
31,000
31,500
Cyc
le E
ffic
ien
cy
Tu
rbin
e w
ork
Ou
tpu
t (k
ca
l/h
) x 1
000
Replacement Options
Turbine Work Output Cycle Efficiency
Results:
16
Simulation a CSP System
System Advisor Model (SAM) by NREL was used as a simulation tool for optimizing PTC system.
Solar irradiation data available at the Hashemite University were used and weather data were obtained by Atmospheric Science Data Center (administered by NASA) for selected power plant location.
SAM provides:
1. Required solar field aperture area (in m2)
2. System active hours (8670 hours in the year)
3. Out-of-service days (365 days in the year)
17 Results of Simulation for FWH#1
SM: the factor by which solar field amplified in relation to rated capacity required at design point.
Active hours out of 8760 hours
Out-of-service days out of 365 days
Input Parameters Output of PTC
Replacement Option
Solar
Multiple (SM)
Required
Thermal Power
Output (MWth)
Steam
Output/Input
Temperatures
(°C)
Solar Field
Aperture (m2)
Active
Hours (hour)
Out of
Service Days
FWH#1 1.50 5.74 300/160 13,160 2,043 91
18 Results of Simulation for FWH#1
19 Selection a CSP System In order to increase active hours and operating days; larger solar
field required. Then six simulations for each replacement option were done in range of (1.50 - 2.75, with 0.25 step) SM values; in order to determine the optimal SM value.
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Ap
ert
ure
Are
a (
m2)
Solar Multiple
FWH #1
FWH #1+2
FWH #1+2+3
FWH #4+5
FWH #5
All FWHs
20 Results Verification
Two methods were used to check validity of calculated solar field aperture area:
1- Mathematical equation for estimation the aperture area proposed by Kalogirou.
By using Kalogirou’s equation, aperture area was found to be about 12,084 m2, which is less than obtained in SAM by 8%.
2- Technical comparison with existing commercial CSP plants:
By obtaining average “area-to-thermal power” ratio (m2/MWth) for plants like Shams 1, Andasol, SEGS, etc. and it was around 1,470
m2/MWth. So aperture area found to be about 12,657 m2 which is less than obtained in SAM by 4%.
21 Cost of PTC System Based on World Bank Report, 2011 and “Cost Model” developed
by NREL; different cost factors were assumed to estimate the cost of installed PTC system.
Total capital cost for first case (FWH#1, SM=1.5) was calculated as below:
Parameter Cost Factor Cost of FWH#1, SM=1.5 (US$)
Direct Capital Cost
Site Improvement (US$/m2) 10.0 131,600.0
Solar Field (US$/m2) 400.0 5,264,000.0
HTF System (US$/m2) 5.0 65,800.0
Contingency (% of total direct cost) 3% 163,850.0
Indirect Capital Cost
EPC (Engineering, procurement and construction) (% of total direct cost) 10% 562,530.0
Total Capital Cost (Direct & Indirect) 6,187,780.0
Annual Running Cost
O&M (labor and material) (US$/kW-year) 12.0 68,880.0
22 Cost of PTC System Share of direct and indirect parameters in total capital cost for
FWH#1:
Site Improvement
2%
Solar Field 85%
HTF System 1%
Contingency 3%
EPC 9%
23 Fuel Savings Fuel savings for FWH#1 with different SM values were as below
table:
Based on this, cost for all FWHs replacement options with different SM values were done. After that, SPBP was carried out for all options.
SM Solar Field
Aperture (m2)
Total
Capital
Cost (M.US$)
US$/kWth Ratio
Actual Active Hours (hour)
Thermal Energy
Saved (kcal×109/yr.)
Fuel
Saving
(US$/yr.)
Simple
Payback
Period (year)
1.50 13,160 6.188 1,077 2,002 11.237 541,046 11.44
1.75 15,275 7.182 1,251 2,377 13.344 642,476 11.18
2.00 17,390 8.177 1,424 2,649 14.868 715,834 11.42
2.25 19,505 9.171 1,597 2,853 16.012 770,918 11.90
2.50 21,855 10.276 1,789 3,018 16.941 815,674 12.60
2.75 23,970 11.271 1,962 3,105 17.425 838,979 13.43
24 Optimizing PTC System: Relation between SM values, total capital cost and SPBP for FWH#1:
Optimal SM value for this case at SM=2.00, and optimal values for other replacement options ranges between 1.75 - 2.00 SM values.
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.5
14.0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
Sim
ple
Pa
yb
ac
k P
eri
od
(ye
ars
)
To
tal C
ap
ital C
ost
(US
$)
Millio
ns
Solar Multiple
Total Capital Cost Payback Period
25 Sensitivity Analysis
10.05
12.69
11.11
11.20
11.28
11.35
12.80
10.38
11.73
11.64
11.56
11.49
10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0
Solar field (400 ± 50 US$/m2)
Price of Fuel (488.2 ± 10% US$/ton)
EPC (10 ± 3% of total direct cost)
Contingency (3 ± 2% of total direct cost)
Site Improvement (10 ± 5 US$/m2)
HTF System (5 ± 2.5 US$/m2)
Payback Period (years)
Input Decreased Input Increased
26
Economic Analysis: Presented by cash flow diagram and Net Present Value (NPV).
Financial parameters (ex: inflation, discount rates, etc.) were assumed.
-8,1
76,7
00
475,4
73
496,4
56
518,1
72
540,6
23
563,8
06
587,7
14
612,3
33
637,6
44
663,6
21
690,2
30
846,6
58
888,9
91
933,4
40
980,1
12
1,0
29,1
18
1,0
80,5
74
1,1
34,6
02
1,1
91,3
32
1,2
50,8
99
3,4
82,9
66
-$10,000,000
-$8,000,000
-$6,000,000
-$4,000,000
-$2,000,000
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-8,1
76,7
00
-7,7
01,2
27
-7,2
04,7
71
-6,6
86,5
99
-6,1
45,9
76
-5,5
82,1
70
-4,9
94,4
56
-4,3
82,1
23
-3,7
44,4
80
-3,0
80,8
59
-2,3
90,6
29
-1,5
43,9
72
-654,9
81
278,4
59
1,2
58,5
71
2,2
87,6
89
3,3
68,2
62
4,5
02,8
65
5,6
94,1
97
6,9
45,0
96
10,4
28,0
62
-$15,000,000
-$10,000,000
-$5,000,000
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
NPV of
+191,503 US$
PBP of 12 years
and 6 months
27 Sensitivity Analysis for NPV
11.38
-5.60
-4.29
4.20
3.61
3.00
0.87
2.38
2.06
2.05
-6.10
10.44
7.89
-0.37
0.22
0.83
2.96
1.45
1.76
1.77
-7.0 -5.0 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0
Discount Rate (7 ± 1%)
Inflation Rate (5 ± 1%)
Lifetime (20 ± 2 Years)
O&M (12 ± 3 US$/kWth)
Income Tax Rate (14 ± 2%)
Insurance (0.3 ± 0.1%)
Salvage value (10 ± 2% of total cost)
Debt Fraction (70 ± 10% of total cost)
Loan Rate (6 ± 1%)
Loan Term (10 ± 2 Years)
Net Present Value (NPV) x 100000
Input Decreased Input Increased
28 Sensitivity Analysis for PBP
13.14
12.19
12.26
12.33
12.36
12.38
12.39
12.43
11.89
12.75
12.67
12.59
12.56
12.54
12.54
12.49
11.80 12.10 12.40 12.70 13.00 13.30
Inflation Rate (5 ± 1%)
O&M (12 ± 3 US$/kWth)
Income Tax Rate (14 ± 2%)
Insurance (0.3 ± 0.1%)
Discount Rate (7 ± 1%)
Debt Fraction (70 ± 10%)
Loan Term (10 ± 2 Years)
Loan Rate (6 ± 1%)
Payback Period (years)
Input Decreased Input Increased
29 Environmental Consideration
GHG emissions, (specifically CO2 emissions) were considered.
In addition to protecting the environment, other potential of reduction the investment cost was considered.
77.4 ton of CO2 could be avoided per each 1 Tera joule of energy saved (77.4 ton CO2/TJ). And each ton avoided will save 26 US$.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
Am
ou
nt
of
CO
2 A
vo
ide
d (
ton
CO
2/y
ea
r)
Solar Multiple
FWH#1
FWH#1+2
FWH#1+2+3
FWH#4+5
FWH#5
All FWHs
CO2 saving contributes in reducing SPBPs by about 15% with respect to SPBP before considering CO2 emissions.
30 Environmental Consideration
11.44
11.18
11.42
11.90
12.60
13.43
9.73
9.51
9.72
10.12
10.72
11.43
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
So
lar
Mu
ltip
le
Payback Period (years)
PBP (Fuel + CO2) PBP (Fuel Only)
31
Main Findings
Te
ch
nic
al Increasing the efficiency of existing Rankine cycle up to
2.47% (from 33.63% to 36.10%);
due to increasing turbine‘s output work by up to 7.5% to the base case (33.92 to 36.41 MW)
Eco
no
mic
Optimum solar field SM range between 1.75 - 2.00
Fuel savings up to 6,200 ton of HFO (3 Million US$) per year Payback periods around 11 years
En
vir
on
me
nta
l
Up to 17,500 ton of CO2 avoided per year With additional savings of 450,000 US$ per year Payback period around 9 years
32 Future Work
Based on findings of the study in hand, future work is recommended as below:
1 Using Linear Fresnel Reflectors (LFR) instead of PTC
2 Introducing thermal energy storage systems
4 Integration with combined-cycle power plants (IPP1 & IPP2)
5
3 Applying same study on other HTPP units (i.e. 66 MW Unit) and other power plants in Jordan
Studying solar field configuration and orientation for selected CSP technology
6 Studying how to connect selected CSP system with FWHs or the application/component that integrates directly with CSP system
33
Thank You!