EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference February 57 2013 Scottsdale Arizona Brad Woods McHale amp Associates Mary Glass Mexel USA Dennis Pednault McHale amp Associates Background ID: 594288
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Perfo..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Challenges in Evaluating Heat Rate Performance of New Technologies in Real World Applications
EPRI Heat Rate Improvement Conference
February 5-7, 2013Scottsdale, Arizona
Brad Woods – McHale & Associates
Mary Glass – Mexel USA
Dennis Pednault – McHale & AssociatesSlide2
Background
Project Approach Project Results
Lessons Learned
Discussion
2Slide3
1675 MW PWR – 2 units 2.4 million GPM Circ Water
75,000 l/s CW/Condenser396,000 GPM/Condenser
6 condensers with continuous mechanical ball-cleaning systemsTreated one condenser on Unit 2 with Mexel.
Nuclear
Power
Plant Case Study
3Slide4
Condenser Data4Slide5
Condenser – Shell Side
5Slide6
Condenser – Tube Side6Slide7
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
7Slide8
Project Approach8
Plant Goals
Down power events
Macro-fouling
Micro-fouling
Protocol/Planning
Work Packages
Installation
Monitoring
ResultsSlide9
Expected Results9Slide10
Fouling Resistance
Test Approach
10Slide11
.Differential Pressure
Test Approach
11Slide12
Corrected LMTDTemperature
Velocity
Load
Test Approach
12Slide13
Permanent Plant
Temporary Test
Instrumentation13Slide14
Humidity Data LossWater
Drivers
Hydroids Trends Fouling Events
HydroidsGrass
Horseshoe crabs
Blue crabs
Project Experience
14Slide15
Test Interruptions
Issues
15Slide16
Crabs
Issues
16Slide17
Grass
Issues
17Slide18
Data Acquisition
Issues
18Slide19
LMTD
TTD Heat Transfer Coefficient
Fouling
Expected Power Benefit Paired t-Test
Test Results
19Slide20
Test Results 20Slide21
Test Results 21Slide22
Test Results22Slide23
Test Results23Slide24
Test Results24Slide25
Test Results25Slide26
Test Results26Slide27
Test Results27Slide28
Test Results28Slide29
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
29Slide30
Paired t-test
Assessment
30Slide31
Instrumentation Data Acquisition Data
Nuclear limitations
Performance monitoring Correlations Methods
Quick /relative to demonstrate expectations. Small difference but statistically
significant
Verification
Lessons Learned
31Slide32
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
32Slide33
Contact Information
McHale & Associates, Inc.
www.mchale.org18378 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
33