challenges in evaluating heat rate performance of new technologies in real world applications n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 109 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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, 2013Scottsdale, Arizona

slide2

Discussion

  • Background
  • Project Approach
  • Project Results
  • Lessons Learned
slide3

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.
slide7

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
slide8

Project Approach

  • Plant Goals
    • Down power events
    • Macro-fouling
    • Micro-fouling
  • Protocol/Planning
  • Work Packages
  • Installation
  • Monitoring
  • Results
slide10

Test Approach

  • Fouling Resistance
slide11

Test Approach

  • .Differential Pressure
slide12

Test Approach

  • Corrected LMTD
    • Temperature
    • Velocity
    • Load
slide13

Instrumentation

  • Permanent Plant
  • Temporary Test
slide14

Project Experience

  • Humidity
  • Data Loss
    • Water
    • Drivers
  • Hydroids
  • Trends
  • Fouling Events
    • Hydroids
    • Grass
    • Horseshoe crabs
    • Blue crabs
slide15

Issues

  • Test Interruptions
slide16

Issues

  • Crabs
slide17

Issues

  • Grass
slide18

Issues

  • Data Acquisition
slide19

Test Results

  • LMTD
  • TTD
  • Heat Transfer Coefficient
  • Fouling
  • Expected Power Benefit
  • Paired t-Test
slide29

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
slide30

Assessment

  • Paired t-test
slide31

Lessons Learned

  • Instrumentation
  • Data Acquisition
  • Data
    • Nuclear limitations
    • Performance monitoring
    • Correlations
  • Methods
  • Quick /relative to demonstrate expectations.
  • Small difference but statistically significant
  • Verification
slide32

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
contact information
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