doe fe advanced turbines program - netl.doe.gov library/events/2017/utsr/general... · doe fe...

DOE FE Advanced Turbines Program

Rich DennisU.S. Department of Energy

National Energy Technology Laboratory

November 1, 2017University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA

2017 University Turbine Systems Research Project Review Meeting

2

• Program elements / goals• System studies

• H2 turbine at 3,100°F• SCO2 w/ oxy-CFB• SCO2 direct (coal gasification based)

• Program project work• Core projects• UTSR projects• START rig• NETL RIC

• Next steps• Summary

Presentation Overview2017 University Turbine Systems Research Project Review Meeting

3

• Advanced Combustion Turbines• CC eff. ~ 65 % (LHV, NG bench mark), TIT of 3,100 F• Delivers transformational performance benefits by 2025

• SCO2 Turbomachinery• Recompression Brayton Cycles (Indirect) for “boilers” • Allam Cycles (Direct) for gasification and NG

• Pressure Gain Combustion• Alternate pathway to high efficiency

Advanced Turbines Program ElementsResearch Focused in Three Key Technology Areas

4

H2 Turbines - Performance and Cost ComparisonsReference, Advanced H2 Turbine, and Transformation H2 Turbine “All-in” Cases

Parameter "F" Turbine (reference)

AHT(2650 F)

THT(3100 F)

H2 Turbine (MW) 464 680 940Fuel Gas Expander (MW) 7 3 7Air Expander (MW) n/a 14 39Steam Turbine (MW) 248 392 485Gross Power (MW) 719 1,090 1,471Auxiliary Power (MW) -186 -262 -338Net Power (MW) 533 828 1,133Coal Feed (lb/hr) 481,783 635,089 816,118Plant Efficiency (%) 32.4 38.1 40.6COE ($/MWh)* 134.5 104.1 92.7* w/o T&S

5

• LP Cryogenic ASU • 99.5% O2• 3.1% excess O2 to CFB

• Atmospheric oxy-CFB • Bituminous coal • 99% carbon conversion• In-bed sulfur capture (94%), 140% excess CaCO3• Infiltration air 2% of air to ASU MAC

• Operating conditions for Rankine plants• Supercritical (SC) Rankine cycle

(Case B22F: 24.2 MPa/ 600 °C/ 600 °C)• Advanced ultra-supercritical (AUSC) Rankine cycle

(Case B24F: 24.2 MPa/ 760 °C / 760 °C)• No low temperature flue gas heat recovery• 45% flue gas recycle to CFB• CO2 purification unit

• ~100% CO2 purity• 96% carbon recovery

Oxy-CFB Coal-fired Rankine Cycle Power PlantSteam Rankine Comparison Cases

MAC1 Cryogenic ASU2Ambient Air

3

Oxy-Circulating

Fluidized Bed Combustor

Forced Draft Fan

Primary Air Fan

14

13

Coal 11

BottomAsh

IDFans

BagHouse 17

16

15 18

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Infiltration Air

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

5

4

26

7

8

27

Fly Ash9

10

6

20

19

Note: Block Flow Diagram is not intended to represent a complete material balance. Only major process streams and equipment are shown.

28

Interstage Cooling

CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping

CO2 Compression, Drying, and Purification Unit

Interstage Knockout

HP TURBINE

2122

23

IPTURBINE LP TURBINE

CONDENSER25FEEDWATER

HEATER SYSTEM

24BOILER

FEEDWATER

12Limestone

Vent

O2

Source: NETL

6

• LP Cryogenic ASU • 99.5% O2• 3.1% excess O2 to CFB

• Atmospheric oxy-CFB • Bituminous coal • 99% carbon conversion• In-bed sulfur capture (94%), 140% excess CaCO3• Infiltration air 2% of air to ASU MAC

• Recompression sCO2 Brayton cycle• Turbine inlet temperature 620 °C and• Turbine inlet temperature 760 °C

• Low temperature flue gas heat recovery in sCO2 power cycle

• 45% flue gas recycle to CFB• CO2 purification unit

• ~100% CO2 purity• 96% carbon recovery

Oxy-CFB Coal-fired Indirect sCO2 Power PlantBaseline sCO2 process


3

Oxy-Circulating


14

Coal

BottomAsh

BagHouse

19

16

15

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

4

26

27

Fly Ash

6

Note: Block Flow Diagram is not intended to represent a complete process. Only major process streams and equipment are shown.

28Interstage Cooling

CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping


Interstage Knockout

31

MAIN CO2 COMPRESSOR

CO2 COOLER

HIGH TEMPERATURE RECUPERATOR

46

12Limestone LOW TEMPERATURE RECUPERATOR

32

33

Bypass CO2 Compressor

38

39

41

37

FLUE GAS COOLER

17

22

18

42

Vent

O2

11

4034

35

36CO2 TURBINE

10

45

5

7

8

923

24

FD Fan

PA Fan

N2 Heater

20

Knockout Water

ID Fan

21

44

Source: NETL

7


3

Oxy-Circulating


14

Coal

BottomAsh

BagHouse

19

16

15

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

4

26

27

Fly Ash

6


CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping


Interstage Knockout

31

MAIN CO2 COMPRESSOR

CO2 COOLER


46


32

33


38

39

41

37

FLUE GAS COOLER

17

22

18

42

Vent

O2

11

40

34

35

36CO2

TURBINE

10

45

5

7

8

923

24

FD Fan

PA Fan

N2 Heater

20

Knockout Water

ID Fan

21

44

13

Infiltration Air

• Baseline configuration

• Reheat sCO2 turbine

• Intercooled 2-stage main sCO2compressor

• Reheat sCO2 turbine and Intercooled main sCO2compressor

Oxy-CFB Coal-fired Indirect sCO2 Power PlantFour sCO2 cycle configurations analyzed


3

Oxy-Circulating


14

Coal 11

BottomAsh

BagHouse

19

17

15

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

5

4

7

8

27

Fly Ash

6


CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping


Interstage Knockout

31

High Temperature Recuperator

46

12Limestone LOW TEMPERATURE RECUPERATOR33

44

Flue Gas Cooler

22

49

50

Very High Temperature Recuperator

32

43


38

40

37

42

CO2 Cooler

26

Knockout Water

Vent

O2

HP CO2 TURBINE

IP CO2 TURBINE

10

9

20

34

35

36

45

47

48

23

24

FD Fan

PA Fan

ID Fan

21

13

Infiltration Air

1618

N2 Heater

MAIN CO2 COMPRESSOR

39

41

Note: Block Flow Diagram is not intended to represent a complete process. Only major process streams and equipment are shown.


3

Oxy-Circulating


14

Coal

BottomAsh

BagHouse

19

16

15

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

4

26

27

Fly Ash

6


CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping


Interstage Knockout

31

MAIN CO2 COMPRESSOR

CO2 COOLER


46


32

33


38

39

41

37

FLUE GAS COOLER

17

22

18

42

Vent

O2

11

40

34

35

36CO2

TURBINE

10

45

5

7

8

923

24

FD Fan

PA Fan

N2 Heater

20

Knockout Water

ID Fan

21

44

13

Infiltration Air


3

Oxy-Circulating


14

Coal 11

BottomAsh

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

5

4

7

8

27

6


CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping


Interstage Knockout



44

Flue Gas Cooler

22

Main CO2 Compressor

Stage 1


38

40

41

37

42

Intercooler

Main CO2 Compressor

Stage 2

CO2 Cooler

26

Vent

O2

10

9

34

35

36

39

45

23

24

FD Fan

PA Fan

21

13

Infiltration Air

31

46

32

CO2 TURBINE

BagHouse

19

16

15

Fly Ash

FLUE GAS COOLER

1718

N2 Heater

20

Knockout Water

ID Fan


3

Oxy-Circulating


14

Coal 11

BottomAsh

BagHouse

19

17

15

LP CO2Compressor w/

Intercooling

CO2 Drying 30

Knockout Water

CO2 Product

5

4

7

8

27

Fly Ash

6


CO2 Purification 29

Compression/Pumping


Interstage Knockout

31


46


44

Flue Gas Cooler

22

49

50

Very High Temperature Recuperator

32

43

Main CO2 Compressor

Stage 1


38

40

41

37

42

Intercooler

Main CO2 Compressor

Stage 2

CO2 Cooler

26

Knockout Water

Vent

O2

HP CO2 TURBINE

IP CO2 TURBINE

10

9

20

34

35

36

39

45

47

48

23

24

FD Fan

PA Fan

ID Fan

21

13

Infiltration Air

1618

N2 Heater

Source: NETL

8

• Relative to the steam Rankine cycles:• At 620 °C, sCO2 cycles are 1.1 – 3.2

percentage points higher in efficiency• At 760 °C, sCO2 cycles are 2.6 – 4.3

percentage points higher• The addition of reheat improves sCO2

cycle efficiency by 1.3 – 1.5 percentage points

• The addition of main compressor intercooling improves efficiency by 0.4 – 0.6 percentage points

• Main compressor intercooling reduces compressor power requirements for both the main and bypass compressors

Summary of Overall Plant HHV Efficiencies

620 °C760 °C

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

Rankine Base IC Reheat Reheat+IC

33.634.7

35.336.2

36.836.9

39.5 39.940.8 41.2

Plan

t Effi

cien

cy (H

HV %

)

Power Summary (MW) B22F Base IC Reheat Reheat+ICCoal Thermal Input 1,635 1,586 1,557 1,519 1,494sCO2 Turbine Power 721 1,006 933 980 913CO2 Main Compressor 160 154 148 142CO2 Bypass Compressor 124 60 117 58Net sCO2 Cycle Power 721 711 708 704 702Air Separation Unit 85 83 81 79 78Carbon Purification Unit 60 56 55 54 53Total Auxiliaries, MWe 171 161 158 154 152Net Power, MWe 550 550 550 550 550

Source: NETL

9

• Note that there is significant uncertaintyin the CFB and sCO2 component capital costs (-15% to +50%)

• Large capital cost uncertainties being addressedin projects funded by NETL, EPRI and OEM(s):

• sCO2 turbine (GE, Doosan, Siemens)• Recuperators (Thar Energy, Brayton Energy, Altex)• Primary heat exchanger (B&W, GE)

• sCO2 cases have comparable COE to steam Rankine plant at 620 °C, and lowerCOE for 760 °C cases

• Main compressor intercooling improves COE 2.2 – 3.5 $/MWh• Low cost means of reducing sCO2 cycle mass flow

• Reheat reduces the COE for the 620 °C cases, but increases COE for turbine inlet temperatures of 760 °C

• Due to the high cost of materials for the reheat portions of the cycle in 760 °C cases

Summary of COE Steam Rankine vs. sCO2 Cases

760 °C620 °C

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

Rankine Base IC Reheat Reheat+IC

123.2120.0

117.8120.8

118.5

125.7128.2

124.7 126.0123.0

COE

( $/M

Wh)

Source: NETL

w/o transportation and storage (T&S) costs

10

• Reference: Supercritical Oxy-combustion CFB with Auto-refrigerated CPU (Case B22F)

• $0/tonne CO2 Revenue• 550 MWe

• COE reductions are relative to an air fired, supercritical PC coal plant with CCS (B12B)

• Higher efficiency and lower COE for sCO2 cycles relative to steam

• Large uncertainty in commercial scale sCO2 component costs

• Further improvements to the sCO2 cycle are currently under investigation

Comparison of sCO2 versus Rankine CasesCOE vs. Process Efficiency Analysis, with CCS

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48

COE

(with

out T

&S) (

$/M

Wh)

Net Plant HHV Efficiency for Coal Plant with Adv. Cycle (%)

Oxy-CFB (B22F)

10% reduction in COE

from B12B

20% reduction in COE

from B12B

X = 100%

X = 140%

X = 𝑨𝒅𝒗. 𝑺𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑰𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅+𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝑹𝒆𝒇.𝑺𝒚𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒎 𝑪𝒐𝒔𝒕𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑰𝒔𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅+𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓

620 °C sCO2

760 °C sCO2

Oxy-CFB(B24F)

SC Cycles (620 °C)AUSC Cycles (760 °C)

Baseline COE($133.2/MWh)

Air-PC(B12B)

Source: NETL

11

• NETL Study Objective: Develop a performance and cost baseline for a syngas-fired direct sCO2cycle

• Gasification-direct sCO2 plant design:• Low pressure cryogenic Air Separation Unit (ASU) with

99.5% oxygen purity [3]• Down-selected to commercial Shell gasifier with standard

AGR technology• Dry-fed gasifier with high cold gas efficiency

• CO2 purification unit (CPU) used to meet CO2 pipeline purity specifications

• sCO2 turbine cooling flows included [4]• Condensing sCO2 cycle operation (CIT = 27 °C)• Thermal integration between sCO2 cycle, gasifier, and

Balance of Plant (BOP)• Preheats syngas and sCO2 prior to combustion• Includes process steam plant for BOP thermal duties

Analysis of Integrated Gasification Direct-Fired sCO2 Power Cycle

CO2

StorageP

TC

CoolerCooler

Syngas

O2

sCO2

H2O

Combustor

Compressor

Pump

Turbine

Syngas Cooler

Illinois #6 Coal

ASU

N2

ShellGasifier

QuenchCOS

H2SS

Dryer

Air

Q

LTR HTR

Cooling sCO2

Sulfinol(AGR)

Claus Plant

Syngas

Source: NETL

12

sCO2 and IGCC Economic Comparison• sCO2 Total Plant Costs are similar relative to

reference IGCC plant:• Higher syngas cooler and ASU costs• Lower gas cleanup and CO2 storage compression costs• Comparable Power cycle + HRSG + Steam Plant costs

• Case 2 TPC is 5% lower than the Baseline sCO2Case

• Syngas cooler cost reduced by eliminating HT sCO2preheating

• sCO2 cycle cost increases with CO2 flow rate, recuperator duty, and increased power output

• sCO2 plants have lower COE than IGCC plant• TPC better on a $/MW basis• sCO2 Baseline COE is 10% lower than IGCC plant,

Case 2 is 20% lower• Case 2 has 11% lower COE compared to Baseline sCO2

plant, due to lower TPC and increased efficiency

Parameter IGCC [5] sCO2Baseline

sCO2Case 2

Capital Costs (TPC, $1,000)Coal Handling System 43,156 41,775 41,775Coal Prep and Feed 218,724 199,571 199,571Feedwater & Miscellaneous BOP 65,849 21,252 21,363Gasifier and Accessories 429,678 667,292 540,793Cryogenic ASU 251,490 346,824 348,623Gas Cleanup & Piping 323,580 160,519 160,528CO2 Compression & Storage 81,688 60,601 61,460sCO2 Cycle/Comb. Turbine & Acc. 160,049 261,793 290,387HRSG Ductwork & Stack 56,527 0 0Steam Plant 85,322 34,428 29,214Cooling Water System 39,217 39,523 39,332Balance of Plant 222,322 226,634 230,227Total Plant Cost (TPC) 1,977,603 2,060,211 1,963,273

Operating & Maintenance Costs ($1,000/yr)Fixed O&M 71,389 76,877 73,508Variable O&M 45,146 45,479 43,573Fuel 111,740 104,867 104,867COE (w/o T&S) (2011$/MWh) 152.6 137.3 122.7

For discussion purposes only do not cite or reference

13

• Thermal integration in Case 2 improves thermal efficiency by 2.9 percentage points relative to Baseline sCO2 case

• Both cases compare favorably to the EPRI sCO2 study, which does not include turbine blade cooling or combustor pressure drops [3]

• sCO2 cases deliver higher efficiency than IGCC cases with a gas turbine + steam combined cycle power island

• Change to GE gasifier may improve efficiency [5]• Optimized sCO2 outperforms advanced (AHT) and

transformational hydrogen turbine (THT) cases from the IGCC Pathway Study [8]

• Turbine only comparison, with GE gasifier

Comparison with Other Gasification StudiesPlant Design and Performance Comparison

Source: NETL


14

• The COE for the sCO2 plant is 11-20% lower than the COE for the reference IGCC plant

• Decrease in COE is primarily due to the higher efficiency of the sCO2 plant

• Comparable COE to EPRI study, though this uses lower cost PRB coal [3]

• IGCC AHT and THT cases based on a GE gasifier with a radiant syngas cooler [8]

• TPC 15% lower than Shell gasifier [5]• COE $17.2/MWh lower (-11.3%)

Comparison with Other Gasification StudiesEconomic Analysis Results – COE

GE GasifierShell Gasifier

79.670.5

85.8 8774.2

61 53.6

19.517.3

1320.5

18.2

14.612.5

11.5

10.3

1313

12.2

10.29.1

26.6

24.715.8

32.1

30.7

28.1

26.4

146.18.8

131.18.3

135.98.3

162.49.8

144.79.2

122.48.4

109.57.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

sCO2Baseline

sCO2Case 2

EPRICase 3

Ref. IGCC- Shell

Ref.IGCC-GE

IGCCAHT

IGCCTHT

COE

(201

1$/M

Wh)

CO2 T&SFuelVariable O&MFixed O&MCapital

Source: NETL


15

Core projects of the AT programComponent development for combustion turbines and SCO2 turbomachinery

• Phase II 2016 awards 6 projects supporting 3100 F TIT and SCO2 turbomachinery

• GE - Low-Leakage Shaft End Seals for Utility-Scale sCO2 Turbo Expanders

• SwRI - High Inlet Temperature Comb. for Direct Fired Supercritical Oxy-Combustion

• Aerojet Rocketdyne – RDC for GT and System Synthesis to Exceed 65% Eff.

• GE - High Temperature Ceramic Matrix Composite (CMC) Nozzles for 65% Efficiency

• Siemens – Ceramic Matrix Composite Advanced Transition for 65% Combined Cycle

• GE – Advanced Multi-Tube Mixer Combustion for 65% Efficiency

16

Microstructure Sensitive Crystal Viscoplasticity for Ni-Base Superalloys Georgia TechEvaluation of Flow and Heat Transfer Inside Lean Pre-Mixed Combustor Systems Under Reacting Flow Conditions Virginia Tech

High-Pressure Turbulent Flame Speeds and Chemical Kinetics of Syngas Blends with and without Impurities Texas A&M

New Mechanistic Models of Creep-Fatigue Interactions for Gas Turbine Components Purdue UniversityEffects of Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) on Turbulent Combustion and Emissions in Advanced Gas Turbine Combustors with High-Hydrogen-Content (HHC) Fuels Purdue University

Thermally Effective and Efficient Cooling Technologies for Advanced Gas Turbines U. North DakotaAbradable Sealing Materials for Emerging IGCC-Based Turbine System U. California, IrvineAn Experimental and Modeling Study of NOX-CO Formation in High Hydrogen Content Fuels Combustion in Gas Turbine Applications U. South Carolina

Predictive Large Eddy Simulation Modeling and Validation of Turbulent Flames and Flashback in Hydrogen Enriched Gas Turbines U. Texas at Austin

Investigation of Autoignition and Combustion Stability of High Pressure Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Oxycombustion Georgia Tech

Chemical Kinetic Modeling Development and Validation Experiments for Direct Fired Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Combustor U. Central Florida

A Joint Experimental/Computational Study of Non-Idealities in Practical Rotating Detonation Engines U. MichiganRevolutionizing Turbine Cooling with Micro-Architectures Enabled by Direct Metal Laser Sintering Ohio StateAdvancing Pressure Gain Combustion in Terrestrial Turbine Systems Purdue UniversityHigh Temperature, Low NOX Combustor Concept Development Georgia TechUnderstanding Transient Combustion Phenomena in Low-NOx Gas Turbines Penn State

Effect of Mixture Concentration Inhomogeneity on Detonation Properties in Pressure Gain Combustion Penn State

Design, Fabrication and Performance Characterization of Near-Surface Embedded Cooling Channels (NSECC) with an Oxide Dispersion Strengthened (ODS) Coating Layer U. Pittsburgh

UTSR Project Portfolio Existing / Active Projects

17

Discrete Element Roughness Modeling For Design Optimization Of Additively And Conventionally Manufactured Internal Turbine Cooling Passages PSU

High-Frequency Transverse Combustion Instabilities In Low-Nox Gas Turbines GA Tech

Real-Time Health Monitoring For GT Components Using Online Learning And High Dimensional Data GA Tech

Improving NOx Entitlement with Axial Staging Embry-Riddle

Integrated Transpiration and Lattice Cooling Systems Developed by Additive Manufacturing with Oxide-Dispersion-Strengthened Alloys U of Pitt

Integrated TBC/EBC for SiC Fiber Reinforced SiC Matrix Composites for Next-Generation Gas Turbines Clemson

Development of High Performance Ni-Base Alloys for Gas Turbine Wheels using a Coprecipitation Approach OSU

Optical Monitoring of Operating GT Blade Coatings Under Extreme Environments UCF

Fuel Injection Dynamics and Composition Effects on RDE Performance Michigan

UTSR Project PortfolioNew 2017 UTSR Awards

18

• Collaboration between DOE/NETL, Penn State, and Pratt & Whitney

• Working with NASA, DOD, OEMs• One of the world’s leading gas turbine test

facilities for aerodynamics and heat transfer

Steady Thermal Aero Research Turbine (START) FacilityGovernment, Industry, and Academia Collaboration

Settling Chamber

Venturi

TURBINE

Mot

orSt

arte

r

Overhead Crane

CoolantSystem Flow Meters

Building Back Wall

Roof Exhaust

Turbine Cooling Air

RoofIntake

COMPRESSORS

Motor

Motor

By-Pass

PLC

Mot

orSt

arte

r Controls+ DAQ System

COMPRESSOR ROOM (45’ x 35’)

CONTROL ROOM(25’ x 10’)

TEST BAY ROOM(45’ x 40’)

Tank* OilH2O Treatment

H2O Pre-Treatment

Dyno

*Heat

er

RoofIntake

19

NETL RIC Advanced Turbines ResearchGoal – Develop technology toward achieving the program goal of 3-5% points increase in efficiency.Approach – Perform R&D in three important areas: Combustion, Heat Transfer and Advanced Cycles. Perform systems analyses to support research focus and verify performance targets.

Pressure Gain Combustion*Improving efficiency through pressure increase across combustor.

∆P < 0

∆P > 0

C T

C T

Conventional “Constant Pressure “ Combustion has pressure loss across combustor

“Constant Volume” Combustion incorporates a Pressure Gain with combustion

Aerothermal and Heat Transfer

Improving efficiency by increasing firing temperature and reducing cooling load.

mdotcTc

Tw

mdot∞T∞U∞

z

coolant

Supercritical CO2 CyclesImproving efficiency through unique properties of supercritical CO2 as a working fluid.

Systems AnalysisSupport research focus and verify performance targets.

25

30

35

40

45

50

SOA

Refe

renc

e

Coal

Pum

p

War

m G

as C

lean

up

Adv.

Mem

bran

e

Adv.

Tur

bine

(26

50°F

)

Ion

Tran

spor

t Mem

bran

e

Efficiency (% HHV)

IGCC with CCSIGCC w/o CCSSCPC w/o CCS

*Paid for by Advanced Combustion Systems Program

20

Objectives• Plan, design, build, and operate

a 10 MWe sCO2 Pilot Plant Test Facility• Demonstrate the operability of the

sCO2 power cycle• Verify performance of components

(turbomachinery, recuperators, compressors, etc.)

• Evaluate system and component performance capabilities• Steady state, transient, load following,

limited endurance operation• Demonstrate potential for producing a lower

COE and thermodynamic efficiency greater than 50%

Supercritical Carbon Dioxide 10 MWe Pilot Plant Test FacilityGas Technology Institute

GAS TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTEFE0028979

Partners: SwRI, GE Global Research10/1/2016 – 9/30/2022

BUDGET

DOE Participant Total

$79,999,226 $33,279,408 $113,278,634

21

• Competitive market place• US, International, and secondary markets

• Synergies with DOE and DOD• US universities fully engaged• Significant deployment of NGCC• Significant small business opportunities• FE invests in basic R&D at the component

scale leading to early applied solutions• OEMs eager to deploy components in the

existing fleet leading to TRL acceleration• New products by OEMs can then

incorporate FE sponsored advanced technology at lower risk

Technology MaturationTurbine technology market provides a special case for TRL acceleration

Turbine market place accelerates this model for TRL maturation process

22

• Status of the current CC goal 65 %• Are higher efficiencies on our current path

• Advanced manufacturing to realize GT performance goals

• Additive, coatings, castings, MRO, ceramics, materials, digital solutions, instrumentation, etc.

• Raising the digital twin• The existing fleet• Advanced power systems• Technology maturation

Next Steps

23

• Advanced Turbines Program focused on three areas• Combined cycle combustion turbine• Turbomachinery for SCO2 power cycles• Pressure gain combustion

• System to realize these benefits• Technology / market synergies in manufacturing, across

agencies, applications etc. will facilitate program success

Summary

doe fe advanced turbines program - netl.doe.gov library/events/2017/utsr/general... · doe fe...

Documents