Talk:Combined cycle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Costs given as way too high
As for avoided CO2 costs, most of the literature that I come up with, eg http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2002_Papers/GTC02030.pdf (slide 25), http://www.climatevision.gov/pdfs/coal_roundtable/dalton.pdf (slide 23) http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq_wksp/David-Herzog.pdf (page 3, last line of table), IPCC special (report http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/SRCCS_Chapter8.pdf) page 38; the MIT coal study, talks of avoided costs in the $18-27 range for CO2 (will be 3.66 times higher for C). These are all without EOR, depending on local situations. also, these are mostly costs avoided, not captured, though a couple of resources do not mention the difference. The IGCC report says upto $14-$53 but that is the outer limit.
[edit] US bias
this page calls natural gas a relatively expensive fuel. I was under the impression that whilst true in the usa this is not true in europe where it is even sometimes used in thermal power plants when the price fluctuations make it attractive to do so. Plugwash 00:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nat Gas is typically more expensive in Europe than it is in the United States for most European countries. But it fluctuates quite a bit. Typically, however, coal, nuke, and hydro power is cheaper to operate. --Ignignot 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories?
Shouldn't this page be categorised? Maybe under thermodynamics and engineering? -- Pelle-Gnillot 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] new page?
Perhaps IGCC should have it's own article? It is a major technology in its own right, and a IGCC plant is very different to a conventional combined cycle. -- PeterHewett 09:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree. The average person looking up "combined cycle" isn't looking for detailed information on IGCC. KyuzoGator 20:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Combined (or binary) power production cycles are generally a gas turbine passing its waste heat into a steam turbine system. The other is an INTEGRATED cycle. Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done this. The IGCC now has its own page. I just cut and pasted. I also moved the link from syngas and linked back to here. Hope this is OK Donebythesecondlaw (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Shafts
I don't think this article differentiates properly between CCPP and CCGT. My understanding is that a CCGT is a single-shaft arrangement, with very high (hhp), high (hp) and low (lp) pressure steam turbines on the same shaft as the gas turbine. The design diagram on this page shows a single GT and a single ST, the ST powered by heat recovery from the GT. This isn't really a CCGT (although the term is often used), its a CCPP since the turbines are not on the one shaft. In my experience there is usually more than one GT for each ST.shanvy 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CCGT Plant Efficiency
GE has developed H System with 60% efficiency, using 9H gas turbine. The first unit in commercial operation is at Baglan Bay in 2004. MHI (Mitsubisi Heavy Industry) has also finished verification of their H-series turbine in 2003, which also claimed 60% efficiency. These gas turbine manufacturers have been developing the new turbine series to achieve 60% efficiency under the Advance Turbine System (ATS) program, which was funded by US government.
--Nitchawan 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Design principle
I think the following sentence under Design principle should be changed to:
" In a combined cycle power plant, the heat of the gas turbine's exhaust is used to generate electricity by passing it through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)...."
from " In a combined cycle power plant, the heat of the gas turbine's exhaust is used to generate steam by passing it through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)..."
Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.24.141 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)