Combustion turbines may be fired with natural gas, synthesis gas, low BTU gas, or oil. Each of those fuels may be derived from fossil fuel or biomass fuel. Regardless of the fuel source, almost all combustion turbines suffer a degradation of power output and energy efficiency at warmer ambient temperatures. Accordingly it has become common to chill the inlet air to combustion turbines on warm days. Evaporative cooling has been most commonly used, owing to its low cost. Mechanical compression refrigeration is rapidly gaining market share, especially with peaking applications, because it provides a much larger and more reliable benefit. Thermal chill storage and waste heat powered absorption refrigeration have each found niche applications. Traditional LiBr absorption chillers have suffered from not adapting well to the specific requirements of combustion turbine exhaust powered inlet chilling. Traditional aqua-ammonia absorption refrigeration plants have suffered from being too large and expensive. If those problems can be resolved, waste heat powered absorption refrigeration shows considerable advantage over mechanical compression refrigeration for chilling turbine inlet air, due to the elimination of the large parasitic electric load and several lesser factors (reduced maintenance, more reliability, faster cooldown, smaller/fewer transformers and switchgear, no lube oil system, etc.).
When the combustion turbine exhaust is applied to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), e.g. in a combined cycle plant or a cogeneration plant, there is in additional obstacle to adopting the waste heat powered absorption refrigeration plant. It will frequently be competing with the steam users for the waste heat. If too much good quality steam is required by the absorption plant, that parasitic load can be as bad as or worse than the electric parasitic load of mechanical compression. Surprisingly, this is true even for low pressure steam from three pressure cycles, e.g. 50 to 80 psia steam.
Especially with modern combined cycle plants, the heat recovery steam generator has been optimized for the amount of exhaust heat available, using e.g. three pressure levels and reheat, such that the final exhaust temperature is quite low, in the range of 160 F to 210 F. Thus there is seemingly little or no remaining waste heat to power an absorption cycle.
The prior art pertinent to exhaust powered turbine inlet air chilling for combined cycle plants includes: Hoffdorff and Malewski (1986), Ondryas et al (1991), Langreck (Colibri)(2000), Nagib (1971), Carasci et al (2000), Yokoyama and Ito (2000), Sigler et al (2001), Boonnasa et al (2006), Erickson (U.S. Pat. No. 6,584,801), Erickson (U.S. Pat. No. 6,715,290), Erickson (U.S. Pat. No. 6,739,119), Stuhlmuller (U.S. Pat. No. 7,178,348), Pierson (U.S. Pat. No. 7,343,746), and Smith et al (2007/0240400). Additional citations of interest include Nettel (U.S. Pat. No. 2,322,717), Wolfner (U.S. Pat. No. 2,548,508), Foster-Pegg (U.S. Pat. No. 3,796,045), Lehto (U.S. Pat. No. 5,203,161), Holenberger (U.S. Pat. No. 5,444,971), Meckler (U.S. Pat. No. 6,651,443), and Kashler (U.S. Pat. No. 7,228,682).
In recent years a series of disclosures have presented a simpler ammonia-water absorption cycle for the turbine inlet air chilling application. The simpler cycle uses a vapor-liquid separator in lieu of the traditional costly and complex distillation column. DeVault (U.S. Pat. No. 5,555,738), Ranasinghe et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,058,695), Chow et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,170,263), Vakil et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6,173,563), and Lerner et al (US2002/0053196) have all disclosed this approach.
In contrast, we have discovered (and here disclose) that for the combined cycle turbine inlet air chilling application, the “simple cycle” (without rectification column) is more of a detriment than a benefit. It degrades cycle performance (COP) so much that larger heat exchangers are required, more heat input is required, and also more heat rejection. In an application where waste heat is already in short supply, the “simple” cycle exacerbates the difficulties. Also, in air-cooled cycles or where cooling water is in short supply, the added heat rejection is problematic. Hence one key aspect of the present disclosure is that a distillation column that reduces the water content of the vapor sent to the condenser to below about 3% (e.g. approximately 1.5%) be included in the absorption chilling cycle. For the same reasons, additional state-of-art performance enhancing measures are preferably included in the absorption cycle, such as “absorber heat exchange (ARK)” and “generator-absorber heat exchange (GAX)”
A substantial amount of the absorption refrigeration driving heat is extracted from the LP Economizer section of the HRSG. That is made possible by two features. Taking for example the case of a three pressure reheat combined cycle on a design 95 F day: first the exhaust is further cooled, to e.g. 177 F vs 196 F. The second feature that allows recovery of more useful exhaust heat into the absorption unit is to use reject heat from one of the absorbers of the absorption unit to preheat the feedwater by at least about 25 F, e.g. from 104 F to 148 F. With many fuels, including natural gas, that is hot enough to be above the acid dewpoint. Recirculating feedwater provides low temperature driving heat to the absorption refrigeration unit, while being cooled to approximately 20 to 35 F below the final exhaust temperature, e.g. to about 157 F. Then it is joined by fresh preheated (148 F) feedwater and pumped again into the LP economizer.
Supplying low temperature exhaust heat to the absorption unit in the above manner has the benefit that there is no decrease in steam flow whatsoever, and hence no reduction in steam turbine power output that offsets part of the gain from chilling.
The heat extraction from the exhaust can be alternatively to an ammonia-water solution heat exchanger (heat recovery vapor generator) in lieu of to recirculating feedwater. In that case the HRVG should be “interspersed” with the LP economizer, as described below, in lieu of “below” it (i.e. at lower temperature).
Higher temperature heat is also input to absorption refrigeration unit when necessary, i.e. on hotter days, as follows. The hot end of the LP Evaporator is converted to a heater, and a circulating pump circulates LP evaporator water through that heater, heating it by about 40 to 60 F, e.g. from 304 F to 356 F. It gives up high temperature heat to the absorption refrigeration unit, and then returns to the LP Evaporator at reduced temperature, e.g. 316 F. At the design 95 F ambient, this diversion of exhaust heat to the absorption unit causes a roughly 50% reduction in LP steam flow from this HRSG. On colder days, a bypass valve is controllably opened, bypassing a controllable portion of the hot water around the absorption unit, so there is less or no reduction in LP steam flow.
Inputting higher temperature exhaust heat to the absorption unit in this manner has the benefit that there is no decrease in HP steam flow or IP steam flow in the bottoming cycle, and hence the decrease in steam turbine power output is held to an absolute minimum. Just as with lower temperature exhaust heat input, the higher temperature input (above LP evaporator temperature) can also be via interspersed HRVG in lieu of by recirculating feedwater. Here the HRVG would preferably be located between the LP evaporator and the IP economizer.
Interspersing can be accomplished directly, either in parallel or in series. It can also be accomplished indirectly, via feedwater heating and using recirculating heated feedwater to heat the absorption cycle. Interspersing has the effect of providing higher temperature heat to the absorption cycle, with no detriment to the feedwater heating. There are two advantages to having higher input temperature. First, the feedwater preheat from the absorber can be to a higher temperature, thus freeing up more exhaust heat for the AAR. Second, there can be more internal heat recuperation in the absorber, thus raising COP and decreasing the required amount of heat input for a given amount of chilling.
The above examples all recite a combined cycle. However it will be recognized that this disclosure applies to any combustion turbine cycle incorporating a HRSG, e.g a cogeneration cycle, a STIG or Cheng cycle, etc. All of these have very little remaining “useful” exhaust heat in the conventional sense, and hence can benefit from the disclosed techniques of enhanced heat extraction in order to provide turbine inlet air chilling with little or no parasitic power penalty.
Another advantage of the disclosed inlet air chilling apparatus is that it can readily be adapted to provide inlet air anti-icing on cold days, with no added parasitic power. Conventional anti-icing systems entail an appreciable addition of parasitic power.
a, 6b, and 6c illustrate details of the AAR flowsheet that could be applied to any of the
b depicts the heat input portion of the AAR, including the distillation column. Low temperature heat is input at the HRVG, and high temperature heat at the reboiler, e.g. from recirculating feedwater or steam. Note that, as shown here, one advantage of having multiple evaporators is that cool reflux streams G and E become available, such that no internal SCR heat exchange is required in the rectification column.
c depicts the remainder of the AAR cycle. The highest pressure ammonia vapor is absorbed into a solitary HT absorber, cooled by heat rejection to ambient (i.e. cooling water or air cooling). The lowest pressure ammonia vapor is absorbed into three absorbers at approximately the same temperature levels—the LT AHX, the FW preheater, and the HP AHX, and also into a lower temperature ambient cooled absorber.
Note that the three at the same temperature all provide useful heat recovery. Finally, the intermediate pressure ammonia vapor is absorbed into three sequential absorbers, the first cooled by ambient, and the second (AHX) (warmer) and third (HP GAX) providing useful internal heat recuperation.
d depicts how the
The AAR cycle variants disclosed for this application have several advantages. For example, given the ability of the AAR to be powered by low grade heat, below 300 F and as low as 170 F, there will frequently be opportunities to utilize what would otherwise be considered as waste heat from opportunity sources. One example would be from a cooler for the turbine blade cooling air. Another example would be from an associated fuel gasification plant, for example a plant used to produce synthesis gas for the gas turbine. In the same manner, there will frequently be opportunities for supplying some of the chilling to other beneficial uses. Examples would be, to use some of it for interchilling air between compression stages (intercooled cycle), or for recovery of water from the exhaust by additional cooling of the exhaust. All such enhancements are possible with the disclosed AAR cycle.
As an order-of-magnitude example of the power plant benefits possible with the disclosed apparatus, consider a 2×1 7 FA combined cycle. On a design hot day of 95 F DB, 77 F WB, it produces 460 MW without inlet chilling. When the disclosed inlet chilling is added (12,000 tons to chill both turbines to 50 F), the output is increased to 515 MW. This is at least 5 MW greater increase in capacity than possible from any other known inlet chilling technology, and also at appreciably higher energy efficiency. The comparison to conventional chilling technology is even more favorable when air cooling is used.
As a result of the disclosed internal heat recuperation and feedwater preheating in these AAR cycles, the amount of absorption heat that must be rejected to ambient is reduced to around half as much as ordinarily would be required. This translates directly to water savings in the case of water cooling, or parasitic fan power savings in the case of air cooling.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61214119 | Apr 2009 | US |