 Up |
|
  |
Author: Lew HodgettLew Hodgett Date: Jun 7, 2010 21:50
"GROVER" wrote:
> We were told the plant ran at the highest possible thermal
> efficiency
> and that your reputation as a future engineer would be made if you
> could improve it one tenth of one per cent.
>
> Pushing the envelope of technology is not easy!
--------------------------------------------
Which is why generating plants are more efficient in winter; however,
what is a truly a kick in the rear is the thermal efficiency of a
generating station or an internal combustion engine.
Both are less than 20%%.
Lew
|
| |
|
| | 11 Comments |
|
|
Author: dpbdpb Date: Jun 7, 2010 21:59
Lew Hodgett wrote:
...
> Both are less than 20%%.
...
Large fossil-fired generation is in the 35-36%%; Bull Run mentioned
earlier is about 38%%; new super-criticals are up to at least pushing the
40%% mark if none have yet broken it.
--
|
| |
|
| | 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Lew HodgettLew Hodgett Date: Jun 7, 2010 22:24
"dpb" wrote:
> Large fossil-fired generation is in the 35-36%%; Bull Run mentioned
> earlier is about 38%%; new super-criticals are up to at least pushing
> the 40%% mark if none have yet broken it.
----------------------------------------
Glad to see some improvement over the years.
Le
----------------------------------------
Glad to see some improvement over the years.
Lew
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: dpbdpb Date: Jun 7, 2010 22:33
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>
>> Large fossil-fired generation is in the 35-36%%; Bull Run mentioned
>> earlier is about 38%%; new super-criticals are up to at least pushing
>> the 40%% mark if none have yet broken it.
> ----------------------------------------
> Glad to see some improvement over the years.
If you think since the '60s wasn't improvement, I guess...Bull Run went
on line in 1967, remember. :)
--
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: dpbdpb Date: Jun 7, 2010 23:25
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dpb" wrote:
>
>
>> Large fossil-fired generation is in the 35-36%%; Bull Run mentioned
>> earlier is about 38%%; new super-criticals are up to at least pushing
>> the 40%% mark if none have yet broken it.
> ----------------------------------------
> Glad to see some improvement over the years.
...
There's not been a sizable central-station generation plant that had a
thermal efficiency <30%% built since before WW-II I'd think. Even the
old Kingston Fossil units, still operate in the low 30%% range after 50+
years.
From B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) site...
> Efficiency at a power plant is measured by the ratio of the
> electricity generated compared to the energy in the fuel used.
> Increasing steam temperatures and pressures provides more energy to
> the...
|
| Show full article (2.67Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: RobatoyRobatoy Date: Jun 8, 2010 01:13
On Jun 7, 5:25 pm, dpb non.net> wrote:> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> "dpb" wrote:
>
>>> Large fossil-fired generation is in the 35-36%%; Bull Run mentioned
>>> earlier is about 38%%; new super-criticals are up to at least pushing
>>> the 40%% mark if none have yet broken it.
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Glad to see some improvement over the years.
>
> ...
>
> There's not been a sizable central-station generation plant that had a
> thermal efficiency <30%% built since before WW-II I'd think. Even the
> old Kingston Fossil units, still operate in the low 30%% range after 50+
> years.
>
> From B&W (Babcock & Wilcox) site...
>
> ...
|
| Show full article (3.24Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: dpbdpb Date: Jun 8, 2010 01:41
Robatoy wrote:
...
> One big difference in pollutants is to burn that ' clean coal' those
> adverts on US TV talk about. *smirk*
> Seriously, one plant I worked at had a pile of 'summer coal' for those
> hazy days.
That used to be quite common; not so much any longer w/ restricted
limits altho may be some places that still have to. Detroit Edison
Monroe plant did so routinely; we had online sulfur meter there to
monitor in real time.
One major advantage in going to the super-critical cycle; it could
reduce coal consumption 20%% or even more depending on the age/efficiency
of generation it replaced.
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Doug HousemanDoug Houseman Date: Jun 8, 2010 02:39
In article <4c0d4d79$0$1312$c3e8da3@ news.astraweb.com>,
"Lew Hodgett" verizon.net> wrote:
> "GROVER" wrote:
>
>> We were told the plant ran at the highest possible thermal
>> efficiency
>> and that your reputation as a future engineer would be made if you
>> could improve it one tenth of one per cent.
>>
>> Pushing the envelope of technology is not easy!
> --------------------------------------------
> Which is why generating plants are more efficient in winter; however,
> what is a truly a kick in the rear is the thermal efficiency of a
> generating station or an internal combustion engine.
>
> Both are less than 20%%.
>
> Lew
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: dpbdpb Date: Jun 8, 2010 03:56
Doug Houseman wrote:
...
> Common steam plants in use today, built years ago - are in the 40-42
> percent thermal efficiency range. Newer prototype plants have hit over
> 60 percent. I doubt the prototypes will ever be built full scale with
> that level of efficiency.
...
Who are those? Gas combined-cycle turbines, maybe?
Sure not coal-fired; current super-critical units are just now at around
the 42%% numbers...
--
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RobatoyRobatoy Date: Jun 8, 2010 04:42
On Jun 7, 9:56 pm, dpb non.net> wrote:> Doug Houseman wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> Common steam plants in use today, built years ago - are in the 40-42
>> percent thermal efficiency range. Newer prototype plants have hit over
>> 60 percent. I doubt the prototypes will ever be built full scale with
>> that level of efficiency.
>
> ...
>
> Who are those? Gas combined-cycle turbines, maybe?
>
> Sure not coal-fired; current super-critical units are just now at around
> the 42%% numbers...
>
> --
|
| Show full article (0.77Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
