CenPEEP Activities

7/31/2019 CenPEEP Activities

1/73

CenPEEP


2/73

CenPEEP

Center forPower Efficiency

&Environmental Protection


3/73

Centre for Power Efficiency & Environmental

Protection

CenPEEPA Symbol of NTPCs Commitment

for

Sustainable Development

&

Successful International Cooperation forimprovement in the field of power generation


4/73


Protection

Formation of

CenPEEP?


5/73


Protection

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC)Kyoto Protocol

Sustainable Development


6/73


Protection

In June 1992, the United NationsFramework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) was signed in Rio

de Janeiro. The climate conventionwas the base for international co-operation within the climate change

area. In the convention the climateproblems & its seriousness was

stressed.


7/73


Protection

The conventions overall objective wasthe stabilization of greenhouse gasconcentrations in the atmosphereat a

level that would prevent dangerousinterference with the climate system.


8/73


Protection

USA was obligated to a cumulativereduction in its greenhouse gas

emissions to 7% below the 1990levels of the greenhouse gases(including carbon dioxide)


9/73

9

No Access to state-of-art technologies

(New Technology )

Lack of expertiseand agenciesfor perf. evaluationand gap analysis

Lack of system documentation

Training expertise

Lack of resourcesfor implementation & itssustainability

Local (Indian) Power Plants Challengesfor Efficiency Improvement


10/73

10

CENTREFOR POWER EFFICIENCYANDENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

(CenPEEP)win-win strategy at CenPEEP by achieving synergy between Global

environ-mental concerns and Indian utility needs of ComprehensivePerformance improvement


11/73

11


(CenPEEP)


12/73

12

Training &

Technology

Dissemination

Technology

Demonstration

Technology

Selection &

Acquisition

Technology

Transfer

CenPEEP ModelState-of-the art technology & practices for GHG

reduction from existing coal fired power stations and

new power generation capacities

Sustainabilitythrough

Systems & Procedures


13/73

13

CENTRE FOR POWER EFFICIENCY ANDENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

(CenPEEP)

Green Power through Higher Efficiency

Established in 1994 with support of USAID

Institution set-up to implement Indo-US project ofGreenhouse

Gas Pollution Prevention Project (GEP)

CENPEEP is an example of NTPC's concern for environmentalprotection and commitment to SUSTAINABLE POWERDEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

Window for technology transfer to India from developed

world


14/73

14


(CenPEEP)

CenPEEP in collaboration with USAID with a mandate toreduce GHG emissionsper unit of electricity generatedby

improving the overall performance of coal-fired power plants in

India.

The Centre functions as a Resource Centre foracquisition,demonstration anddissemination of state-of-the-art technologies

andpractices for performance improvement of coal fired power

plants for the entire power sector of India.


15/73

15

Guided byAdvisory Board & Executive Committee

GEP

Partners

NTPC

Guj. Gen Co Maha Gen CO

AP Gen CO

PSEB

UPRVUN

WBPDCL Jharkhand

IPGCL

USDOE

NETL

EPRI

TVA GAI

Southern

Research Structural Int.

Domain Experts

CenPEEP

Members from NTPC, USAID and Govt of India,State & Private Power Utilities, industry, research institutes, etc.

CenPEEP Partnership Greenhouse Gas Pollution Prevention Project


16/73

16

USDOE : US Dept. Of Energy USAID : US Aid for International Development

NETL : National Energy Technology Laboratory

EPRI : Electric Power Research Institute

TVA : Tennessee Valley Authority GAI : GAI Consultant Inc. Southern Research Structural Int.

Domain Experts

CenPEEP Partnership


17/73

17


(CenPEEP)

Tasks CenPEEP assists power station in improving the

performance of operating units.

CenPEEP carried out Performance test to fix base

line performance data wherever performance

Guarantee test data is not available

Establishes System of (POG ) Performance

Optimization Group in all NTPC Station & other

SEBs


18/73

18


(CenPEEP)

Project Selection Selection of unit / Station is done based on improvement

potential

willingness on part of the utility to initiate the program

Station need to equip it self with additional off line instruments& skills to conduct a Performance improvement program

Performance testing are carried out at the station by CenPEEP

Performance enhancement potential is worked out in the unit

selected and action plan formulated to enhance the efficiency

level on sustainable basis


19/73

19

CenPEEP program lead to CO2reduction

Successful replication in SEBs: Maharashtra SEB: reported savings of about 4 million tons

of coal & of 5 million tons of CO2 in two years usingCenPEEP tools

UPRVUNL reported reduction in coal consumption by 2.5%

in one year by implementing learning from CenPEEPawareness Programs

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

97-

98

98-

99

99-

00

00-

01

01-

02

02-

03

03-

04

04-

05

05-

06

06-

07

Year

Cumulativ

eReductioninCO2

Emission

(M

illionTones)


20/73

20

B. Technology Acquisition

Hands-on trainingin US utility

Demonstration inIndia by US expertsupport

Training in India tolarge number ofengineers

Technical Reports

Technology Acquisition

A. Technology / Practices selection

Technology selection in associationTechnology selection in association

withwithUSDOE / TVA / EPRIUSDOE / TVA / EPRI

CriteriaCriteria Relevance to Problem solution &Relevance to Problem solution &

Success possibility in IndiaSuccess possibility in India

US utility experienceUS utility experience Currently not in use in IndiaCurrently not in use in India

Cost effectivenessCost effectiveness

Possibility of USAID support forPossibility of USAID support for

DemonstrationDemonstration


21/73

21

DISSEMINATION & TRAINING

Dissemination through:Performance OptimisersWorkshopsSeminars

GuidelinesTechnical documentation5000 man-days training provided to

power station engineersTo increase outreach, establishment of

Regional CenPEEPs at NR & ER


22/73

22

125 Workshopson Boiler & Turbine Analysis &Performance Improvement; Diagnostics andKnowledge Based Maintenance

14000 Training man days - Participants fromNTPC, DVC, GSCEL, UPRUVNL, TNEB,APGENCO, PSEB, RRUVNL, MSEB, IPGCL etc.

319 Demonstrations - Hands-on training

Guidelineson Thrust areas

Papersat various conferences

Customized training programsorganized at SEBsas per their needs

Widespread

Dissemination

Quarterly newsletter

Optimisersavailable on NTPC website

Supported by 48 US team visits of over 1050 man days


23/73

23

GHG reduction through Systems of

POG-H & POG-A

Implementation of Optimization program.

Involvement of all concerned at projectlevel

Continued motivation

Performance optimization Group (POG) is

the answer


24/73

24

Performance Optimisation Group- Heat Rate

(POG-H)

POGs Groups are the forum or structure of

lateral communication: more effective the

communication, more successful is the Program

Performance Optimisation Group- Availability

(POG-A)

Established at all the Stations All relevant executives discuss the performance,

tests and their results

Group defines the action plan for optimisation


25/73

25

Plant Performance Optimization Approach

Best Efficiency &

Lowest GHG emission

HR

Unit availability

Boiler Turbine

Air Pre Htrs.

Mills & Burners Condenser & CW System

HP& IP Turbine

BFP & HP/LPHeaters

Boiler Pressureparts

Coal handling system Gen; X-mer & switchyard

Human Element

Methodology

Identify major problemareas of degradation

Evaluation of

effectiveness ofimprovement activities

Focus on eachsub-system &component

Health of each

componentdetermineshealth of theequipment


26/73

26

Boiler Performance OptimizationMill Performance test

Clean air flow test

Dirty air flow test

Air heater Performance tests and gap analysis

Burner to burner PF balance tests

High Volume sampling test HVT

Real time measurements & Balancing of air-fuel ratio

Various test Conducted by CenPEEP


27/73

27

Turbine

Steam Turbine Efficiency test

Turbine Pressure survey

Condenser Performance Test

Condenser Helium leak detection TestCondenser Water Pressure Cleaner

Feed water heater performance

High Energy Drain Passing

On line CW flow measurement

Cooling Tower Performance tests

Various test Conducted by CenPEEP


28/73

28

Predictive maintenance System and technologies for diagnostics

Reliability Centered Maintenance

Thermodynamic modeling: A tool for Performance analysis

(PEPSE)-

Thermal audit: Accurate assessment of degradationsRisk evaluation & prioritization

Introducing new overhaul practices

Other Activities By CenPEEP


29/73

29CenPEEP is a resource center for Plant performance optimization, Diagnostics & Solutions

Benefits

Significant GHG reduction

Fuel Savings in power sector

Reliability Improvement

Grass Root Interventions


30/73

30

LOSSES

IN

POWER STATION


31/73

31

Concept of loss

A thermal power station consists of Boiler : converts chemical to heat energy.

Turbine : Converts heat to mechanical energy

Generator : Converts mechanical to electricalenergy

Auxiliaries : Electrical to mechanical energy

Any energy conversion associated with

energy loss. This loss may be in the form offriction, heat, magnetic etc.


32/73

32

BoilerCycle

UnitAuxiliaries

Netelectricoutput

Typical Plant Losses

13%

56% (49%)

8%(3%)

100%

Heatinput 87% 38% 35%


33/73

33

Boiler loss

A boiler generally encounters followinglosses.

Exit loss or dry flue gas loss.

Wet flue gas loss

Moisture in combustion air

Unburnt gas loss

Combustible in ash

Radiation and unaccounted loss.


34/73

34

Exit loss or dry flue gas loss Fuel burns in the combustion chamber at very high

temperature. The produced flue gas exchangeheat to super heaters, economizer, air pre heatersand finally comes out at a temperature of about140 deg C.This is in order to strike a balancebetween economy of heat exchange as well as toavoid end corrosion.

The exit flue gas contains mixture of CO2, O2, N2 &CO all at exit temperature and left exhaust to

atmosphere. This resulting a huge heat energy loss.


35/73

35

Wet flue gas loss

The fuel contains inherent moisture andhydrogen. Combustion of hydrogen producewater. The wet flue gas loss is due to heatabsorption by this moisture/ water forvaporization.


36/73

36

Moisture in combustion air

The ambient air contains moisture. This

moisture also carries away latent and

sensible heat from the system


37/73

37

Unburnt gas loss

Though excess air is administered in thecombustion chamber, due to nonhomogeneous mixture and rarifaction in

combustion space, CO gets produce and goesout at exit, taking away the heat value of thegas.


38/73

38

Combustible in ash loss

The retention time of a coal particle inside thecombustion chamber is in the order of 3 sec. Ifthe particle size is bigger, or the combustionatmosphere is having shortage of oxygen it

does not burnt completely and drops downwith ash particle. Similarly smaller un burntparticle carries away with fly ash.


39/73

39

Radiation & unaccounted loss

Radiation loss varies with boiler size and load asshown in the figure.

Radiation loss is given by = log10 B = 0.8167 0.4238 log10Cwhere B = radiation and unaccounted loss and C = specific

boiler capacity in kg/s


40/73

40

Boiler loss calculation- anexample

Fuel firing rate = 5599.17 kg/hr


41/73

41

Steam generation rate = 21937.5 kg/hr

Steam pressure = 43 kg/cm2(g)

Steam temperature = 377oC

Feed water temperature = 96oC

%CO2 in Flue gas = 14

%CO in flue gas = 0.55

Average flue gas temperature = 190oC

Ambient temperature = 31oC

Humidity in ambient air = 0.0204 kg / kg dry air

Surface temperature of boiler = 70oC

Wind velocity around the boiler = 3.5 m/sTotal surface area of boiler = 90 m

2

GCV of Bottom ash = 800 kCal/kg

GCV of fly ash = 452.5 kCal/kg

Ratio of bottom ash to fly ash = 90:10

Fuel Analysis (in %)

Ash content in fuel = 8.63

Moisture in coal = 31.6

Carbon content = 41.65

Hydrogen content = 2.0413

Nitrogen content = 1.6

Oxygen content = 14.48

GCV of Coal = 3501 kCal/kg

The data collected arefor a boiler using coalas the fuel.

Find out the boilerefficiency by indirectmethod.


42/73

42

Boiler efficiency by indirect method

Step1 Find theoretical air

requirement

Theoretical air required for

complete combustion

= [(11.43 x C) + {34.5 x (H2O2/8)} + (4.32 x S)] /

100 kg/kg of coal

= [(11.43 x 41.65) + {34.5 x (2.041314.48/8)} +

(4.32 x 0)] / 100

= 4.84 kg / kg of coal


43/73

43

Step2 Find theoretical CO2 %

% CO2 at theoretical condition( CO2 )t

=Moles of C

Moles of N2 + Moles of C

Where,

Moles of N2 =

4.84 x 77/100 0.016

+ = 0.133228 28

Where moles of C = 0.4165/12 = 0.0347

( CO2 )t =

0.0347

0.1332 + 0.0347

= 20.67


44/73

44

Step3 To find Excess airsupplied

Actual CO2 measured in flue gas = 14.0%

% Excess air supplied (EA) = 7900 x [ ( CO2)t(CO2)a]

(CO2)a x [100 (CO2)t ]

= 7900 x [20.67 14 ]

14a x [100

20.67]

= 47.44 %


45/73

45

Step 4 to find actual mass of air supplied

Actual mass of air supplied = {1 + EA/100} x theoretical air

= {1 + 47.44/100} x 4.84

= 7.13 kg/kg of coal

Step5 to find actual mass of dry flue gasMass of dry flue gas consists of Mass of CO2 +Mass of N2 content in the fuel+ Mass

of N2 in the combustion air supplied + Mass of

oxygen in combustion air supplied

Mass of dry flue gas = 0.4165 x 44 7.13 x 77 (7.13-4.84) x 23+ 0.016 + +

12 100 100

= 7.562 kg / kg of coal


46/73

46

Step

6 to find all losses

1. % Heat loss in dry flue gas (L1) = m x cp x (TfTa )

x 100GCV of fuel

=7.562 x 0.23 x (190

31)

x 1003501

L1 = 7.89 %


47/73

2. % Heat loss due to formation

of water from H2 in fuel (L2)

= 9 x H2 x {584 + Cp (TfTa )}

x 100

GCV of fuel

=

9 x .02041 x {584 + 0.45(190-31)}

x 100

3501L2 = 3.44 %

3. % Heat loss due to moisture in

fuel (L3)

=

M x {584 + Cp ( TfTa )}

X 100

GCV of fuel

=0.316 x {584 + 0.45 ( 190

31) }

x 100

3501

L3 = 5.91 %


48/73

48

4. % Heat loss due to moisture in

air (L4)

=AAS x humidity x Cp x (TfTa ) x 100

GCV of fuel

=

7.13 x 0.0204 x 0.45 x (190 31) x 100

3501

L4 = 0.29 %

5. % Heat loss due to partial

onversion of C to CO (L5)

=%CO x %C 5744

x x 100

% CO + (% CO2)a GCV of fuel

=

0.55 x 0.4165 5744

x x 1000.55 + 14 3501

L5 = 2.58 %


49/73

49

6. Heat loss due to radiation andonvection (L6)

= 0.548 x [ (343/55.55)4 (304/55.55)

4] + 1.957 x

(343 - 304)1.25

x sq.rt of [(196.85 x 3.5 + 68.9) /

68.9]

= 633.3 w/m2= 633.3 x 0.86

= 544.64 kCal / m2

otal radiation and convection

oss per hour

= 544.64 x 90

= 49017.6 kCal

% radiation and convection loss = 49017.6 x 100

3501 x 5591.17L6 = 0.25 %


50/73

50

7. % Heat loss due to unburnt in fly ash

% Ash in coal = 8.63

Ratio of bottom ash to fly ash = 90:10

GCV of fly ash = 452.5 kCal/kg

Amount of fly ash in 1 kg of coal = 0.1 x 0.0863

= 0.00863 kg

Heat loss in fly ash = 0.00863 x 452.5

= 3.905 kCal / kg of coal

% heat loss in fly ash = 3.905 x 100 / 3501

L7 = 0.11 %

8. % Heat loss due to unburnt in fly ash

GCV of bottom ash = 800 kCal/kg

Amount of bottom ash in 1 kg of

oal

= 0.9 x 0.0863

= 0.077 kg

Heat loss in bottom ash = 0.077 x 800

= 62.136 kCal/kg of coal

% Heat loss in bottom ash = 62.136 x 100 / 3501

L8 = 1.77 %

Boiler efficiency by indirect = 100 (L1+ L2+ L3+ L4+ L5+ L6+ L7+ L8)


51/73

51

y ymethod

( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8)

= 100-(7.89 + 3.44+ 5.91+ 0.29+ 2.58+ 0.25+0.11+1.77)

= 100-22.24

= 77.76 %

Summary of Heat Balance for Coal Fired Boiler

Input/Output Parameter kCal / kg of

coal

% loss

Heat Input = 3501 100Losses in boiler

1. Dry flue gas, L1 = 276.23 7.89

2. Loss due to hydrogen in fuel, L2 = 120.43 3.44

3. Loss due to moisture in fuel, L3 = 206.91 5.91

4. Loss due to moisture in air, L4 = 10.15 0.29

5. Partial combustion of C to CO, L5 = 90.32 2.58

6. Surface heat losses, L6 = 8.75 0.25

7. Loss due to Unburnt in fly ash, L7 = 3.85 0.11

8. Loss due to Unburnt in bottom ash,L8

= 61.97 1.77

Boiler Efficiency = 100 (L1 + L2+ L3+ L4+ L5+ L6+ L7+ L8) = 77.76 %


52/73

52

Boiler Losses Typical values (%)Dry Gas Loss 5.21

Unburnt Loss 0.63

Hydrogen Loss 4.22

Moisture in Fuel Loss 2.00Moisture in Air Loss 0.19

Carbon Monoxide Loss 0.11

Radiation/Unaccounted Loss 1.00

Boiler Efficiency 86.63


53/73

53

Boiler Efficiency values (%) Tur. HR UHRStage-I 87.58 2021.0 2308

Stage-II 87.77 1947.6 2220

Stage-III 85.14 1944.6 2284


54/73

54

TURBINE

LOSSES


55/73

55

A Turbine experiences the

following losses.

1. External Losses

2. Internal Losses


56/73

56

Turbine External Losses

Shaft gland leakage Losses

Journal & thrust bearing losses

Oil pump losses


57/73

57

Turbine Internal Losses

Friction lossStationary blades

Moving blades

Eddy Loss

Moving blades

Windage Loss


58/73

58

Generator Losses

Generator efficiency is very high. Howeverfollowing are the loss component whichare practically insignificant compared to

boiler and turbine loss. Friction & windage loss.

Hysterisis & eddy current loss

Copper loss.

Losses from auxiliary


59/73

59

Losses from auxiliaryconsumption

Typically auxiliary consumption of a thermalpower station is 8 to 10 % of the normalcontinuous rating.

The major consumption is by electric drivenBFP, ID, FD, Mills and Cooling water pumps.


60/73

60

Loss estimation method

Direct Loss = Input energy Output energy. In case

of Boiler, input energy is fuel, andmeasurement of fuel with availabletechnology limitation is a major source oferror.

Indirect

Input = Losses + Output. Error in lossmeasurement with available technique is less.Therefore this method is used world wide.

Direct Method of loss


61/73

61

Direct Method of lossestimation

BoilerFuel Input 100%

+ Air

SteamOut

put

Efficiency = Heat addition to Steam x 100

Gross Heat in Fuel

Flue

Gas

Water

100valuecalorificGrossxratefiringFuel

enthalpy)waterfeedenthalpy(steamxrateflowSteamxEfficiencyBoiler

Indirect Method of loss


62/73

62

Indirect Method of lossestimation

Boiler Flue gas sample

Steam Output

Efficiency = 100 (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8) (by Indirect Method)

Air

Fuel Input, 100%

1. Dry Flue gas loss

2. H2 loss

3. Moisture in fuel

4. Moisture in air

5. CO loss

7. Fly ash loss

6. Surface loss

8. Bottom ash loss

Water

Blow down

P f G (T i l H R L )


63/73

63

Performance Gaps (Typical Heat Rate Losses)

Assessment of the performance gaps is the first step to improvement

Condenser & CTs (31%)

Turbine HP/IP (19%)Dry Flue Gas Loss (16%)

Unaccountables (20%

RHSpray (7%)

Others (7%)

Combustion Optimization


64/73

64

Combustion Optimization

NON- UNIFORMAir-fuel ratio in Four Corners


65/73

65

NON UN O

Non optimum

combustion

Higher fuel

consumption

Higher CO2

UNIFORM

Optimum

combustion

Lower fuel

consumption

Lower CO2

Coal Pipes Bad Flame

Good Flame

Steam Condenser Lower Steam Flow


66/73

66

Steam CondenserLower

Vacuum

Lower Steam Flow

Condensate

Dirty TubesCooling Water

Inlet

Outlet

Non-Optimized condition

Air-in leaks

Lower vacuum

Dirty tubes

Lower generation

(MW)

Higher fuel

consumption

Higher CO2emission

Steam Condenser Higher Steam Flow


67/73

67

Steam Condenser Higher Steam Flow

Condensate

Clean TubesCooling Water

Inlet

Outlet

More generation

(MW) Low fuel

consumption

Low CO2

emission

Optimized condition

No air-in leaks(High vacuum)

Clean tubes

High

Vacuum


68/73

68

Condenser Tube Cleaning byWater Powered Cleaners (CONCO)

Water Powered Gun used to push bullets (scrapper)

to clean condenser tubes;

Most effective and low cost technology

Valve Passing


69/73

69

>150.0C

#3 >#1

Effective method to identify valve leakage & repair.

Losses due to Valves are unaccountable loss

Temperature as per Colour Scale

ESP Performance Enhancement


70/73

70

ESP Performance Enhancement

Challenges

High ash coals

High ash resistively due

to low sodium andsulpher

Silica & alumina >90%

making flue gas

conditioning difficult.

High flue gas

temperatures reducing

ESP efficiency

Flue gas conditioning by:

Water Fogging(Changing physical

characteristics)

Sodium sulphate dosing

(Changing chemical

characteristics)

Activities

Addressing the ash resistivity

Particulate Collection Enhancement by Water fogging


71/73

71

Particulate Collection Enhancement by Water fogging

Fog at different water-air Pressure

Significant reduction in particulate emission

Change of Physical Characteristics


72/73

72

Conclusion

CenPEEP is considered as one of the most successfulbilateral projects of USAID by US administration.

Economic selection and acquisition of state-of-the-arttechnologies

Demonstration & fusion of these technologies withlocal requirements

Wider dissemination with a systems approach.

Best Approach for Environmental Protection


73/73

Thank You

Documents

CenPEEP Activities