Power cycle development

Steam cycles dominant for

>300 yrs, mostly Rankine
Gas Brayton cycles
catching up last 50 years
Organic Rankine Cycles
(ORC) relatively recent
2
Why a new power cycle?
Steam
Good efficiency at lower turbine inlet
temperature
Low compression work (pumping incompressible liquid)
High expansion ratio (large work extraction / unit mass
of fluid)
2-phase heat addition limits turbine inlet
temperature
Expansion into 2-phase region = blade erosion
Corrosion, water treatment issues
3
Why a new power cycle?
Gas Brayton cycles
Good fuel-power conversion efficiency
Require high (combustion) turbine inlet temperatures
for efficient operation
Compression work large fraction of developed power
ORC
Best solution at low temperatures, dry expansion
Working fluids are more difficult to handle generally
require secondary transfer loop, limits turbine inlet
temperature
4
Characteristics of an ideal power cycle
Good utilization of available heat
High expansion, low compression work
Direct coupling to heat source
Benign working fluid
Non-corrosive, non-toxic, thermally stable
Dry expansion to avoid erosion
Low capital cost
Low operation & maintenance (O&M) costs
5
Supercritical CO
2
meets these characteristics
sCO
2
cycle history
1960s Feher proposes use of a recuperated closed-loop
sCO
2
based power cycle
Recognized that CO
2
properties allow for Brayton-style cycle,
but with Rankine-like compression work
2000s MIT, Sandia, others consider sCO
2
nuclear power
cycle
Three Supercritical CO
2
Power Cycle Symposia
2008, Sandia builds small sCO
2
test loop for turbomachinery
(simple and recompression cycles)
2007 Echogen founded with vision of commercializing a
sCO
2
waste heat recovery heat engine
2009, builds ~ 250kWe demonstration simple cycle system
2011, begins construction of 7.5MWe commercial system
6
sCO
2
cycles Simple recuperated cycle
Good heat utilization at low heat source
temperature
Compact equipment set
2-phase
Supercritical fluid
Superheated
vapor
Subcooled
liquid
7
High density fluid = compact equipment:
Heat exchangers
8
>15MW
>300m heat transfer area
~13000kg
Core ~ 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.5 m
Comparable S&T:
>850m
~50000kg
Shell ~ 1.2m diameter x 12m length
High density fluid = compact equipment:
Turbomachinery
9
10MW sCO
2
turbine
10MW steam turbine
Non-condensing expansion
Condensing expansion
Simple single-phase exhaust heat exchangers
Boiling process in steam systems limits maximum fluid temperature, requires
multiple pressures to achieve close approach to exhaust temperature
ORC systems require intermediate heat transfer loop, plus boiling heat transfer
Constant temperature
boiling process
Continuous
temperature increase
10
CO2 cycles The challenge with a simple
recuperated architecture
11
Heat addition
Expansion work Compression work
Low pressure ratio cycle => recuperation => can limit T of heat addition
CO2 cycles Simple cycle limitations
Highly recuperated cycle limits performance
at higher heat source temperature
12
Heat addition
CO2 cycles Cascading can increase
available T
Heat extraction limitations of simple
recuperated cycle mitigated
13
Heat addition
CO2 cycles recompression yields high heat
to power efficiency, but very low T
14
Heat addition
Recompression cycle specifically designed
for low T applications (nuclear, CSP)
Applications of the sCO
2
cycle
Geothermal (Low T, thermosiphon)
Concentrated Solar Thermal (CSP)
(High T, low DT)
Exhaust & waste heat recovery (Moderate T, high DT)
Topping cycle (High T, low DT)
250 kW demonstration system: initial field tests
completed at American Electric Power (AEP)
16
Designed for full access
and ease of maintenance
Shop packaged / modular design
for ease of installation
Commercial size demonstration
unit at AEPs test facility
Measured performance in line with cycle model
predictions 140 hours, 93 turbine starts
250 kW demonstration system: long-term tests
at Akron Energy Systems (AES) during 2012
17
Hardware transferred and delivered by truck Cooling tower installation
Heat engine delivery and placement System installation now underway
First commercial-scale system at
~7.5MW, utilizes commercial technology
18
From Sandia National Laboratory report
First 7.5MW system is currently in fabrication
19
Subsystem and component testing planned for 3Q through 4Q 2012
Full system installation and testing in early 2013
System installation comparison:
7.5MW steam vs. sCO2
20
Smaller installation footprint compared to a HRSG/steam system for
gas turbine bottom cycling
Gas turbine
Steam sCO
2
sCO
2
= Higher power at lower CAPEX for
CCGT applications
21
High output power + low cost + low O&M = low LCOE
sCO
2
the clear solution for gas turbine heat recovery
DP HRSG sCO2
sCO
2
+ LM2500
DP-HRSG + LM2500
LM2500 Simple Cycle
SP-HRSG + LM2500
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d

c
o
s
t
N
e
t

p
o
w
e
r

(
k
W
e
)
Ambient temperature (C)
Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE)
The Key Performance Metric
Lower capex of sCO
2
system provides major advantage
Faster startup times (~20min vs 45-90 min for steam) = higher
average output in peaking applications
Lower footprint, zero water usage in dry-cooled applications
22
Summary
sCO
2
cycles have significant advantages in several
applications over steam
Good thermodynamic performance
Low installed capex
Favorable LCOE
Broad range of applications under consideration
Waste heat recovery first commercial application
Demonstration system proved feasibility
First full-scale application in 2013
23