challenges in evaluating heat rate performance of new technologies in real world applications
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications
EPRI Heat Rate Improvement ConferenceFebruary 5-7, 2013Scottsdale, Arizona
Brad Woods – McHale & AssociatesMary Glass – Mexel USADennis Pednault – McHale & Associates
• Background
• Project Approach
• Project Results
• Lessons Learned
Discussion
2
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.
Nuclear Power Plant Case Study
3
Condenser Data
4
Condenser – Shell Side
5
Condenser – Tube Side
6
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
Project Background
7
Project Approach
8
Plant Goals•Down power events•Macro-fouling•Micro-fouling
Protocol/Planning Work PackagesInstallationMonitoringResults
Expected Results
9
• Fouling Resistance
Test Approach
10
( )p h cQ UA LMTD mc T T
( )P h cmc T TUA LMTD
1o
m t s fi
U DR R R RD
11
EFF
fClean
UR
U
•.Differential Pressure
Test Approach
11
1.8M
C Mo
WdP dPW
Corrected LMTD
Temperature
Velocity
Load
Test Approach
12
C M T W QLMTD LMTD f f f
0.25
O
S MT
S O
T LMTDfT LMTD
0.5T
WO
VfV
OQ
T
QfQ
Permanent Plant
Temporary Test
Instrumentation
13
Humidity Data LossWaterDrivers
Hydroids Trends Fouling Events
Hydroids Grass Horseshoe crabs Blue crabs
Project Experience
14
Test Interruptions
Issues
15
Crabs
Issues
16
Grass
Issues
17
Data Acquisition
Issues
18
LMTD
TTD
Heat Transfer Coefficient
Fouling
Expected Power Benefit
Paired t-Test
Test Results
19
Test Results
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
Plant Observed Results Plant personnel reported no discernible improvement Overall plant output
Conclusions Small proportion of plant treated Condenser Interconnection affected pressure Statistical tests
Results
29
Paired t-test
Assessment
30
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Variable 1 Variable 2Mean 0.87 0.77Variance 0.06 0.07Observations 63.00 63.00Pearson Correlation 0.95Hypothesized Mean Difference 0.00df 62.00t Stat 9.80P(T<=t) one-tail 1.65E-14t Critical one-tail 1.67P(T<=t) two-tail 3.30E-14t Critical two-tail 2.00
Instrumentation Data Acquisition Data
Nuclear limitations Performance monitoring Correlations
Methods Quick /relative to demonstrate expectations. Small difference but statistically significant Verification
Lessons Learned
31
Assume 300 MW Assume summer peak Energy = $80/MWAssume 4 month period = 2,920 hours
Expected Power difference = 2.2% (6.6 MW)
Summer Savings = $0.77 million
Expectations
32
Contact Information
McHale & Associates, Inc.www.mchale.org18378 Redmond Way, Redmond, WA 98052(425) 883-2058
Mexel USAhttp://www.mexelusa.com/1655 N. Fort Myer Drive, #350Arlington, VA 22209(703) 349-3347
33