This invention relates to a method and apparatus for controlling the final feedwater temperature associated with a regenerative Rankine cycle, said cycle commonly used in thermal systems such as conventional power plants. This invention involves the placement of a new heat exchanger, termed an Exergetic Heater, in the feedwater path downstream from the highest pressure feedwater heater to assure that the feedwater is properly heated to its final temperature before entering the steam generator. The heating of the feedwater is accomplished by routing steam from the Intermediate Pressure turbine, which normally is routed to the second highest pressure heater. Control of the final feedwater temperature is achieved through a control valve whose actuation adjusts the amount of steam flow being routed from the Intermediate Pressure turbine to the Exergetic Heater.
The regenerative Rankine cycle has been used by the electric power industry for over 100 years. Most commonly the working fluid in these cycles is water. The regenerative Rankine cycle takes steam from a steam generator, produces shaft power by expanding the steam in a turbine, and then condenses the expanded steam in a condenser. Heating of the cycle's working fluid occurs in the steam generator, which may be driven by the combustion of fossil fuel Many modern regenerative Rankine cycles employ a reheating of the steam after an initial expansion in a High Pressure (HP) turbine. After reheating in a Reheater heat exchanger, integral to the steam generator, the steam is returned to the cycle for further expansion in an Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine, followed by expansion in a Low Pressure (LP) turbine; the LP turbine's exhaust is then condensed in a condenser. If an IP turbine is present (accepting steam from a Reheater), its exhaust temperature is commonly higher than the HP turbine's exhaust temperature. The condensate from the condenser, or feedwater, is then routed by pumps through a series of feedwater heaters in which it is re-heated (regenerated). The heating vehicle for the feedwater is extraction steam obtained from the turbine. Feedwater heaters may be of a contact type or a closed type of heat exchanger. A closed type of heater is also termed a surface type heater, this type of heater has a shell-side and a tube-side configuration where, typically, the shell-side contains the heating fluid and the tube-side contains the fluid being heated. With a contact type of heater the extraction steam is directly mixed with feedwater, the heated feedwater/condensed steam being pumped to the next highest pressure heater. With a closed type of heater the extraction steam is contained on the shell-side of the heat exchanger, the feedwater carried within tubes A classical text on the subject of regenerative Rankine cycles used in power plants is by J. Kenneth Salisbury, Steam Turbines and Their Cycles, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Huntington, N.Y., 1950 (reprinted 1974), especially pages 43–93 and 266–273.
For feedwater heaters the heating mechanism involves condensation of turbine extraction steam, its latent heat transferred to the feedwater. Condensing heat transfer is solely dependent on the saturation temperature associated with the extracting steam, and is thus dependent on the extraction pressure delivered by the turbine. Extraction pressures are governed by the turbine's Flow Passing Ability as integrally established by the next downstream nozzle from the point of extraction. The Flow Passing Ability at any point in a steam turbine represents a reduction of Bernoulli's Equation associated with fluid passing through a nozzle (in the case of a turbine, a ring of nozzles forming the inlet to a turbine stage). When nozzles erode their flow area increases, causing, for a given mass flow, a reduction in inlet pressure and thus a reduction in the associated extraction pressure. A degradation in extraction pressure will degrade a feedwater heater's condensing heat transfer mechanism resulting in a lower feedwater temperature.
The typical design practice in North America is to supply the highest pressure feedwater heater its extraction steam from the HP turbine's exhaust. This highest pressure feedwater heater is the last heater the feedwater encounters before returning to the steam generator (it is also termed the “top heater”). The second highest pressure feedwater heater is supplied extraction steam from the IP turbine. The third highest pressure feedwater heater is supplied extraction steam from the next lowest extraction pressure available from the turbine; and so forth. Refer to
A common design practice in Europe is to supply the top heater its extraction steam from a mid-point IP turbine extraction, and to supply the next to the top feedwater heater its extraction steam from the HP turbine's exhaust. An improved balance of shell-side to tube-side differential exergies is obtained using this design, even through the second highest pressure extraction steam (from the IP turbine) is used to heat the top heater. The shell-side outlet of the top heater is then routed to a third feedwater heater, as is the drain flow from the second heater. With the European design, the third feedwater heater does not receive extraction steam directly from the turbine. There is no known design, including European, which extracts steam from a turbine to directly heat both the top heater and the third feedwater heater, i.e., heaters placed in series along the feedwater path. Refer to
The High Pressure (HP) turbine's exhaust pressure is controlled by the next downstream turbine's Flow Passing Ability. The next downstream turbine is typically the Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine. Thus if the nozzles associated with the first stage of an IP turbine erode, the exhaust pressure associated with the HP turbine will degrade, and will thus degrade the associated feedwater heater. In summary: the inlet area of the first nozzles of an IP turbine will control all upstream pressures to the HP turbine: throughout the Reheater heat exchanger, the Reheater piping, and indeed the HP turbine's backpressure (the HP exhaust). When the HP turbine's exhaust is bled to the highest pressure feedwater heater and the IP inlet nozzle area has eroded, extraction pressure to this heater and thus its saturation temperature will degraded, and thus final feedwater temperature will degrade.
Inlet nozzles of IP turbines erode, typically from solid particles trapped in the steam. Traditionally, and especially for the older machine, they go un-repaired for years given that full electrical generation may still be achieved using higher feedwater flows, and with ever increasing consumption of fuel and combustion air. This situation is aggravated if the power plant's over-sight authority (typically a public utility commission or public service commission) allows ever higher fuel costs to be passed onto the electricity customers. However, eventually capacity issues arise from such higher flows. Examples of equipment limitations resultant from such higher flows include: limitations imposed by a combustion air fan; limitations imposed by an induce draft fan controlling combustion gas back-pressures; limitations imposed by a coal mill's capacity; limitations imposed by the capacity of feedwater pumps; limitations imposed by an auxiliary steam turbine driving a feedwater pump; and the like.
Responsible power plant operators are in need of a solution to such a problem. There is no known art which has addressed the issue of IP turbine nozzle erosion at the operational level, when on-line. IP turbine nozzle erosion will degrade the final feedwater temperature on North American steam plants, and will affect system thermal efficiency causing a higher consumption of fuel.
The present invention teaches to route the first IP turbine extraction steam to a new heat exchanger placed downstream from the highest pressure feedwater heater and before the steam generator, in addition to its normal routing to the second highest pressure heater. An extraction from the IP turbine has an appropriate energy flow (given its reheating) for feedwater heating associated with the new heater. The new heater is termed an “Exergetic Heater”. Exergy is a thermodynamic term relating to the maximum potential for power production; thus an Exergetic Heater, used in the fashion taught herein, assists the turbine cycle in achieving maximum power. The Exergetic Heater has the capacity to always heat the feedwater to its final conditions, no matter the reason for a degradation in the feedwater heater's performance (by IP turbine nozzle erosion, higher extraction line pressure drops, degradation in heater performance from non-condensable gas buildup, etc.). It is an important feature of the present invention to use IP extraction steam since its temperature is sufficiently high to cause the proper heating of the feedwater within the Exergetic Heater using minimum flow. In the preferred embodiment the Exergetic Heater has a shell-side and a tube-side configuration. By design, the motive steam enters the shell-side of the Exergetic Heater as superheated steam and exits as saturated steam or subcooled liquid; the exiting fluid then enters a lower pressure feedwater heater having sufficient exergy to assist feedwater heating at that point in the cycle. The present invention also teaches the use of a single turbine extraction to supply a plurality of feedwater heaters placed in series along the feedwater path.
Although not limited to power plant designs found in North America, for the typical North American power plant the present invention teaches that a portion of an IP turbine's steam can be used to heat feedwater such that degradation to its final feedwater temperature may be eliminated through use of an Exergetic Heater. Such heating is achieved through control of the IP extraction steam flow being delivered to the Exergetic Heater as based on a final feedwater temperature set-point. When implemented, this invention eliminates the affects of degradation in final feedwater temperature. Broadly, the present invention teaches now to eliminate degradation in final feedwater temperature associated with the regenerative Rankine cycle. Other advantages of the present invention will become apparent when its methods and apparatus are considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and discussions.
The teaching of the present invention is divided into three sections. The first section discusses the impact a degraded final feedwater temperature has on system thermal efficiency considering individual impacts on the regenerative Rankine cycle (i.e., turbine cycle efficiency) and on the steam generator (i.e., boiler efficiency). The second section discusses a steam turbine's Flow Passing Ability at the inlet to an IP turbine. IP inlet nozzle degradation impacts the regenerative Rankine cycle by degrading final feedwater temperature. The final section teaches the implementation of the present invention which overcomes the effects on system thermal efficiency of degraded final feedwater temperature.
Final Feedwater Temperature
The system thermal efficiency of a power plant employing a regenerative Rankine cycle may be affected by internal interface conditions (i.e., boundaries) between the regenerative Rankine cycle and the steam generator. The energy flow supplied to the regenerative Rankine cycle from the steam generator is termed the “Useful Energy Flow Supplied” (ΣmΔh). By a boundary condition is meant the fluid's pressure and temperature (or quality) and resulting enthalpy (h), and the fluid's mass flow (m). For any power plant, system (or “unit”) thermal efficiency is given by:
ηUnit=ηTCηB (1)
The efficiency of the regenerative Rankine cycle (also termed turbine cycle efficiency) is given as:
ηTC=P/ΣmΔh (2)
Boiler efficiency may be expressed traditionally by Eq.(3), noting it employs a higher (gross) heating value as commonly used in North America. In Europe the lower (net) heating value (LHV) is used to define boiler efficiency. Use of HHV or LHV is not material to the present invention, either may be employed if used consistently as in Eqs.(3), (4B), (4C), etc.
ηB=ΣmΔh/(mAFHHV) (3)
Substitution of these equations leads to Eq.(4C), a classical definition of system thermal efficiency of useful power output divided by input energy flow:
ηUnit=[P/ΣmΔh]ηB (4A)
ηUnit=ηTC[ΣmΔh/(mAFHHV)] (4B)
ηUnit=P/(mAFHHV) (4C)
In the above equations, and elsewhere herein:
By examining these terms it becomes obvious that when the Useful Energy Flow Supplied (ΣmΔh) becomes degraded (i.e., increases for a constant power output), that turbine cycle efficiency (ηTC) will decrease. Increases (degradation) in ΣmΔh may occur through changes to any term of Eq.(5); ΣmΔh will increase given a decrease in the final feedwater enthalpy, hFinal-FW, given a decrease in the final feedwater temperature, TFinal-FW.
To more fully understand the relationship between system, turbine cycle and boiler efficiencies, propose that a change in turbine cycle efficiency is exactly off-set by an opposing change in boiler efficiency; thus no change in system thermal efficiency. However, if assuming constant power, a change in turbine cycle efficiency means a change in the Useful Energy Flow Supplied (ΣmΔh). Indeed, since ΣmΔh appears in the numerator of turbine cycle efficiency and in the denominator of boiler efficiency, effects might cancel. But if affects on ηTC at constant power are to be just off-set by ηB, then fuel energy flow must remain constant. However, thermodynamics suggests this can not be the case; system thermal efficiency must change. The conundrum is that any change in ΣmΔh will integrally affect the steam generator's fuel energy flow, mAFHHV. The relationship between these two energy flows, which is boiler efficiency of Eq.(3), is not dependent on rigid linearity between turbine cycle efficiency and ΣmΔh (given constant power). Indeed, for a steam generator the relationship between ΣmΔh and mAFHHV is non-linear for the following reasons. First, the fluids employed in a steam generator have completely different Maxwellian relationships. An incremental change in (∂h/∂P)T for water is not that for its heating medium the combustion gas if heating working fluid via fossil fuel, nor for the fission process if heating in a nuclear reactor. Thus an incremental change in Carnot conversion of a change in water's ΣmΔh to ideal work is not that associated with an incremental change its instigating fuel. For example, a change in hFinal-FW must affect the Economizer's exiting combustion gas in a conventional power plant (the first exchanger encountered in the steam generator) in a non-linear manner. This will have non-linear effects on the exit boundary conditions of the steam generator, and thus on boiler efficiency. Second, a differential change in thermal energy, ∂(ΣmΔh), must result in a different differential change in chemical energy, ∂(mAFHHV). Again, to invoke Maxwell relationships, (∂h/∂P)T for water varies with operating temperature, (∂h/∂P)T for a fossil fuel is essentially constant. To state otherwise would suggest the ratio of (∂h/∂P)T between water and a fossil (or nuclear) fuel is constant, leading to a linear relationship between boiler efficiency (or the efficiency of the nuclear steam supply system) and load. There is no known steam generator having such a performance profile.
If ΣmΔh increases by 2% given a decrease in hFinal-FW, at constant power, turbine cycle efficiency will decrease by 2%. If boiler efficiency has been found to change due to a 2% change in ΣmΔh, then mAFHHV will change by something other than 2%. Thus system thermal efficiency will have changed.
Second Law concepts produce a systems view. One approach is to differentiate Eq.(1) by power (or exergy); see Eqs.(6B) & (6C). For this and the following paragraph, the indicated partial derivatives are based on holding environmental factors constant. Allow power its variability. The result indicates if fuel energy flow is increased resulting in a higher power output, as converted by system thermal efficiency, that the governing term [ηUnit∂(mAFHHV)/∂P] must then be less than unity to produce an increase in system thermal efficiency (i.e., ∂ηUnit/∂P>0.0).
∂ηUnit/∂P=∂(ηTCηB)/∂P (6A)
∂ηUnit/∂P={1.0−ηUnit∂(mAFHHV)/∂P}/(mAFHHV) (6B)
∂ηUnit/∂P={1.0−[∂(mAFHHV)/mAFHHV]/[∂P/P]}/(mAFHHV) (6C)
The governing term in Eq.(6C) being less than unity to achieve an improved system thermal efficiency, implies a most unusual case where a relative increase in fuel energy flow leads to an even larger relative increase in power output. In summary, a relative increase in fuel energy flow with a concomitant increase in power, caused for example by a change in hFinal-FW, will not improve system thermal efficiency unless [ηUnit∂(mAFHHV)/∂P]<1.0.
Another and more direct approach is to differentiate Eq.(1) by the Useful Energy Flow Supplied (ΣmΔh). The result of Eq.(8), following from Eq.(7B) where power is held constant ∂P=0.0, indicates that when an increase in ΣmΔh results in an increase in fuel energy flow, thus [∂(mAFHHV)/∂(ΣmΔh)]>0.0, that system thermal efficiency will always decline.
∂ηUnit/∂(ΣmΔh)=∂(ηTCηB)/∂(ΣmΔh) (7A)
∂ηUnit/∂(ΣmΔh)=[∂P/∂(ΣmΔh)−ηUnit∂(mAFHHV)/∂(ΣmΔh)]/(mAFHHV) (7B)
[∂ηUnit/∂(ΣmΔh)]P=−ηUnit[∂(mAFHHV)/∂(ΣmΔh)]P/(mAFHHV) (8)
Eq.(8) also suggests that if an increase of any magnitude in ΣmΔh results in a decrease in fuel energy flow, that system thermal efficiency will improve provided power output is held constant. This would suggest, in the extreme, that a 50% increase in ΣmΔh could result in less fuel consumed! Again, invoking the arguments made above, such a situation will lower ηTC, and, if ηUnit is to be improved, means a ≧50% improvement in boiler efficiency! This observation teaches as applied thermodynamics, that no improvement in system thermal efficiency may be expected from any increase in ΣmΔh, no matter how small, provided power is held constant. Thus the issue reduces, given a perturbation in the turbine cycle, to understanding changes in boiler efficiency, Eq.(3). Any in-situ thermal system, operating with a defined and constant environment, will convert a relative change to its fuel energy flow to a relative thermal output, Δ(ΣmΔh)/ΣmΔh, by a continuous boiler efficiency function. To do otherwise would violate Carnot's teachings. It would suggest that a Carnot conversion of thermal energy flow to ideal shaft power is discontinuous, different incrementally for a given ∂(mAFHHV) change. On the other hand, if it is proposed that both power output (P) and fuel energy flow (mAFHHV) remain constant, but ΣmΔh varies, then Eq.(4C) would then suggest system thermal efficiency is constant. Under this proposal, any change to ΣmΔh would be exactly off-set by a counter-acting change in boiler efficiency, see Eq.(4A); but which must imply an off-setting change in the system's fuel energy flow (mAFHHV). Thus, again, it is impossible to envision a change in ΣmΔh without affecting boiler efficiency. It is impossible to envision a negative value for [∂(mAFHHV)/∂(ΣmΔh)] when assuming extreme situations.
In summary, although a degraded final feedwater temperature may not always degrade boiler efficiency (ηB), if such a degradation in final feedwater temperature results in an increase in fuel energy flow (even with an increase in boiler efficiency), system thermal efficiency will always decline. The impact on boiler efficiency will be non-linear when compared to its impact on turbine cycle efficiency. For a fossil-fired system, a degraded final feedwater temperature may result in a lower combustion gas boundary temperature (i.e., Stack temperature); this would result, all other conditions remaining constant, in an improved boiler efficiency and lower fuel flow. However, a reduced Stack temperature will upset conditions elsewhere in the system given affects on downstream working fluid and associated combustion gas conditions. Examples of this may include: a reduced temperature inlet to the IP turbine; a readjustment of spray flows controlling HP and IP turbine inlet conditions, changes in economizer outlet conditions, etc. Whatever the cycle complexities, a degraded final feedwater temperature may easily result in a lower system thermal efficiency. It becomes necessary then, when fully implementing the present invention, to use automatic controls to determine turbine cycle and boiler efficiencies in real-time. Boiler efficiency must be determined independent of fuel flow for coal-fired units given the uncertainties found in metering coal flow.
For fossil-fired steam generators, the determination of boiler efficiency is considered established art. Any of the following procedures may be employed to determine boiler efficiency as required to support the full teachings of the present invention: the Input/Loss Method of computing boiler efficiency as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 6,584,429 (hereinafter referred to as the “Input/Loss Method”); the method taught by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Performance Test Code 4 (hereinafter referred to as the “ASME PTC 4 Method”); the method taught by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Performance Test Code 4.1 (hereinafter referred to as the “ASME PTC 4.1 Method”); methods taught by the German standard “Acceptance Testing of Steam Generators”, DIN 1942, DIN DEUTSCHES Institut Fur Normung E. V. (hereinafter referred to as the “DIN 1942 Method”); the Shinskey control method as referenced in F. G. Shinskey, Energy Conservation Through Control, Academic Press, 1978, pages 102–104 and similar real-time control oriented methods (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Control-Oriented Method”); methods employed by a power plant's distributed control (computer) system such as those provided by ABB Utilities of Mannhiem, Germany and its subsidiaries & affiliated companies, by Siemens of Munich, Germany and its subsidiaries & affiliated companies, ALSTOM of Baden, Switzerland and its subsidiaries & affiliated companies, by Emerson Electric Company of St Louis, Mo. and its subsidiaries & affiliated companies, and similar distributed control systems (DCS, hereinafter referred to as the “DCS-Based Method”); and/or any other reputable method of computing boiler efficiency. The preferred embodiment for computing boiler efficiency as applicable to a fossil-fired steam generator is the Input/Loss Method.
Flow Passing Ability and the IP Turbine
The causes of a decrease in the final feedwater enthalpy, hFinal-FW, thus degrading ΣmΔh, may occur through any one or all of the following: non-condensable gas blanketing of the heat transfer surface area (i.e., improper venting); unusual increase in the extraction line pressure drop; liquid level control problems in the heater's drain section; changes in extraneous (non-extraction) steam entering the heater; and erosion of the IP inlet nozzles. Of these reasons for degradation, all but erosion of the IP inlet nozzles may be repaired while on-line or their effects eliminated through operational changes. The most common reason for long-term decline in system thermal efficiency associated with turbine cycle boundary conditions is degradation in the final feedwater temperature as caused by erosion of the IP turbine's inlet nozzles.
The design steam mass flow passing through a turbine's nozzle is a function of the turbine's design characteristics, its nozzle's inlet steam pressure and specific volume, and its design mass flow rate. From these considerations its design Flow Passing Ability constant (KDesign) may be determined using Eq.(9). In Europe the Flow Passing Ability constant is termed the turbine's Swallowing Capacity. Using KDesign, the actual inlet mass flow at actual conditions may then be computed from Eq.(10).
P
B-Calc=(mB-Act/KDesign)2 vB-Calc|h=f(P,T) (11)
where in these equations, and as used below:
As the IP turbine's inlet nozzles erode and/or otherwise age, degradation (an increase) in its actual Flow Passing Ability may be monitored by measuring the inlet pressure and temperature, and then computing the turbine's inlet mass flow rate, mB-Calc, via Eq.(10). Differences between mB-Cal and mB-Design, or between mB-Calc and mB-Act, are indicative of nozzle erosion. mB-Act may be determined by performing a mass balance on the turbine cycle from a point where the working fluid's flow is measured, to the IP turbine's inlet. If computing a mass balance to resolve mB-Act, account must be made for the turbine's steam path flow losses, e.g., turbine seal flows, extraction flows, and the like; and also account must be made for flow gains such as attemperation flows (i.e., in-flows used to control steam temperatures), and the like. However for monitoring purposes such determinations may bear considerable error due to uncertainties in mB-Design when comparing to the actual power output, or in the determination of mB-Act.
Alternatively, the power plant engineer may assume a mB-Act value at design flow, or employ a constant fraction of the routinely measured feedwater flow and compute PB-Calc using Eq.(11). PB-Calc is then compared to the measured pressure PB-Act; if PB-Act<PB-Calc for a given power, the nozzle is eroded. Eq.(11) is deceptively complex in that an iterative procedure is require for solution. Each iteration made at an assumed constant enthalpy. Such a iterative procedure is available from Exergetic Systems, Inc. of San Rafael, Calif. (web site at www.ExergeticSystems.com) through its EX-PROP computer program; in 2005 EX-PROP was licensed for $350. The procedure involves plotting turbine data on a Mollier Diagram but ignoring turbine inlet data (which might be influenced by nozzle erosion), extrapolating the expansion line upwards to an assumed IP Bowl condition, choosing an enthalpy (hB-Act) which crosses the extrapolated expansion line near the Bowl, then use EX-PROP to resolve PB-Act at the chosen enthalpy. This process is repeated until the state point (PB-Act, TB-Act and hB-Act) lies on the extrapolated expansion line thus satisfying the design Flow Passing Ability at the turbine's inlet mass flow, mB-Act, as determined.
Alternatively, as an IP turbine's inlet nozzles erode and/or otherwise ages, its actual Flow Passing Ability, KActual, may be determined through measurement of the actual inlet pressure, the actual inlet temperature, and an obtained inlet mass flow, mB-Act.
Given nozzle degradation, the actual Flow Passing Ability constant, KActual, will generally indicate marked sensitivity when compared to the design value, KDesign. The obtained inlet mass flow may be had as discussed above. When degraded: KActual>KDesign This method is the preferred embodiment given greater observed sensitivity.
Implementation
To implement the present invention an Exergetic Heater is placed between the top feedwater heater and the steam generator. In addition, as seen in
When
The Exergetic Heater's shell-side outlet fluid conditions normally would be routed to one feedwater heater below (in extraction pressure) than that heater which is associated with supplying it extraction steam; i.e., outlet fluid 507 from 403 is routed to heater 433 (not 423) in
However, there may be situations in which the Exergetic Heater's shell-side outlet fluid conditions must be routed to the same feedwater heater which is associated with supplying it extraction steam; see extraction steam 323 in
An objective of the present invention is controlling the final feedwater temperature associated with a regenerative Rankine cycle. This is accomplished by manual adjustment of a control valve (e.g., manual operation of control valve 316 in
Further, determination of the final feedwater temperature set-point, at a given power output, may be determined in an iterative manner such that system thermal efficiency is maximized. As taught in the first section above, turbine cycle efficiency is linear with Useful Energy Flow Supplied (ΣmΔh) given constant power, thus the controller would be expected to response in a linear manner to any degradation in the final feedwater temperature. Indeed, the computation of turbine cycle efficiency in real-time is considered common art, see Eqs.(5) and (2). However, as taught above, affects of final feedwater temperature on boiler efficiency are non-linear, see Eq.(8) and associated discussions, and may oppose turbine cycle efficiency. Therefore it becomes necessary to compute boiler efficiency in real-time. Thus the resultant system thermal efficiency may be computationally optimized by simply varying the final feedwater temperature set-point until system thermal efficiency is maximized, determined by computing both turbine cycle and boiler efficiencies. Such efficiency computations may occur within the controller (417 in
Further still, knowledge of degradation in the IP turbine inlet nozzle, as taught in the second section above, may add important information for refining the control of the final feedwater temperature. If the Flow Passing Ability of the IP turbine is evaluated as taught herein, in real-time, then an off-setting action may ensue within the controller. Such off-setting action is based on the design IP turbine inlet pressure to be expected if no nozzle degradation was present. This pressure, PB-Design, discussed above, is then translated to a positive change in final feedwater temperature based on Δsaturated temperatures. Eqs.(13) & (14) terms are defined as follows: ΔP/PExt is the relative pressure change from the IP turbine inlet minus the shell-side of the Exergetic Heater divided by the IP turbine inlet; TAct-FW is the actual final feedwater temperature; and Tsat/Act is the actual shell-side saturation temperature associated with the top feedwater heater:
Tsat/Designf [PB-Design(1.0−ΔP/PExt)] (13)
TFinal-FW=TAct-FW+(Tsat/Design−Tsat/Act) (14)
It is to be noted that computing the Flow Passing Ability of the IP turbine in real-time may have importance since it is not uncommon to fine Hot Reheat temperature off-design, which directly impacts a computed Flow Passing Ability, aside of nozzle erosion. This suggests that for some situations, a superficial evaluation of IP turbine performance by only monitoring extraction pressure (thus saturation temperature) may not be acceptable.
To teach an actual application of the present invention, consider the case found at the St. Clair Station, Units 1, 4 and 6, operated by Detroit Edison (owned by DTE Energy Corporation of Detroit, Mich. with regulatory governance provided by the Michigan Public Service Commission, 6545 Mercantile Way, Suite 7, Lansing, Mich. 48911, FAX 517-241-6191). Units 1 and 4 were originally designed to produce 170 MWe each, Unit 6 was originally designed to produce 336 MWe. All are coal-fired. At full load, Unit 1's final feedwater temperature was found degraded by 12.9Δ° F. (7.2Δ° C.), Unit 4's final feedwater temperature was found degraded by 14.4Δ° F. (8.0Δ° C.), and Unit 6's final feedwater temperature was found degraded by 9.2Δ° F. (5.1Δ° C.). Units 1 and 4 were unable to produce design power given limitations to feedwater and combustion air flows, aggravated by degradation in feedwater temperatures; degradation in Unit 1 was 25 ΔMWe (worth $8 million/year in power sales at $40/MWe-hour), degradation in Unit 4 was 18 ΔMWe (worth $5.8 million/year in power sales). At the time of testing Unit 6 was capable of producing design power. The general Exergetic Heater arrangement indicated in
Although the present invention has been described in considerable detail with regard to certain preferred embodiments thereof, other embodiments within the scope of the present invention are possible without departing from the spirit and general industrial applicability of the invention. Accordingly, the general theme and scope of the appended claims should not be limited to the descriptions of the preferred embodiment disclosed herein. For example, the working fluid discussed in the specification herein has been water. The invention may apply to any fluid, as long as it is a working fluid to a regenerative Rankine cycle. Further, the definition of an Exergetic Heater (formally provided below) is presented as a most general concept. Further still, the source of working fluid (e.g., extraction steam) used to heat feedwater within an Exergetic Heater may be taken from any appropriate location within the regenerative Rankine cycle or the steam generator. This invention is especially applicable to power plants fueled by fossil fuel employing a Reheater in its steam generator, the reheated steam being delivered to an Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine. However, this invention is also applicable to any thermal system consisting of a generator of heated working fluid (i.e., the term “steam generator” is defined below), and a regenerative Rankine cycle with reheat.
For
For
For
For
For
For
For
This application claims benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/609,551 filed Sep. 13, 2004 by the same inventor, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety and for all purposes.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3518830 | Dunnavant et al. | Jul 1970 | A |
3842605 | Tegtmeyer | Oct 1974 | A |
4336105 | Silvestri, Jr. | Jun 1982 | A |
5267434 | Termuehlen et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
6422017 | Bassily | Jul 2002 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60609551 | Sep 2004 | US |