1 / 33

Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications

Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications. Brad Woods – McHale & Associates Mary Glass – Mexel USA Dennis Pednault – McHale & Associates. EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference February 5-7, 2013 Scottsdale, Arizona. Discussion. Background

pakuna
Télécharger la présentation

Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications Brad Woods – McHale & Associates Mary Glass – Mexel USA Dennis Pednault – McHale & Associates EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference February 5-7, 2013Scottsdale, Arizona

  2. Discussion • Background • Project Approach • Project Results • Lessons Learned

  3. Nuclear Power Plant Case Study • 1675 MW PWR – 2 units • 2.4 million GPM Circ Water • 75,000 l/s CW/Condenser • 396,000 GPM/Condenser • 6 condensers with continuous mechanical ball-cleaning systems • Treated one condenser on Unit 2 with Mexel.

  4. Condenser Data

  5. Condenser – Shell Side

  6. Condenser – Tube Side

  7. Project Background • Objectives • Measure fouling rates • Compare efficacy of Mexel against non-treated • Instrumentation (Temporary vs. Station) • Accuracy vs Repeatability (Uncertainty) • Timing • ASME PTC 12.2 Steam Surface Condensers

  8. Project Approach • Plant Goals • Down power events • Macro-fouling • Micro-fouling • Protocol/Planning • Work Packages • Installation • Monitoring • Results

  9. Expected Results

  10. Test Approach • Fouling Resistance

  11. Test Approach • .Differential Pressure

  12. Test Approach • Corrected LMTD • Temperature • Velocity • Load

  13. Instrumentation • Permanent Plant • Temporary Test

  14. Project Experience • Humidity • Data Loss • Water • Drivers • Hydroids • Trends • Fouling Events • Hydroids • Grass • Horseshoe crabs • Blue crabs

  15. Issues • Test Interruptions

  16. Issues • Crabs

  17. Issues • Grass

  18. Issues • Data Acquisition

  19. Test Results • LMTD • TTD • Heat Transfer Coefficient • Fouling • Expected Power Benefit • Paired t-Test

  20. Test Results

  21. Test Results

  22. Test Results

  23. Test Results

  24. Test Results

  25. Test Results

  26. Test Results

  27. Test Results

  28. Test Results

  29. Results • Plant Observed Results • Plant personnel reported no discernible improvement • Overall plant output • Conclusions • Small proportion of plant treated • Condenser Interconnection affected pressure • Statistical tests

  30. Assessment • Paired t-test

  31. Lessons Learned • Instrumentation • Data Acquisition • Data • Nuclear limitations • Performance monitoring • Correlations • Methods • Quick /relative to demonstrate expectations. • Small difference but statistically significant • Verification

  32. Expectations • Assume 300 MW • Assume summer peak Energy = $80/MW • Assume 4 month period = 2,920 hours • Expected Power difference = 2.2% (6.6 MW) • Summer Savings = $0.77 million

  33. Contact Information McHale & Associates, Inc. www.mchale.org 18378 Redmond Way, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-2058 Mexel USA http://www.mexelusa.com/ 1655 N. Fort Myer Drive, #350 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 349-3347

More Related