Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lecture 13 - Combined Cycle, With MP Steam
Lecture 13 - Combined Cycle, With MP Steam
Lecture 13 - Combined Cycle, With MP Steam
Lecture 13
A combined cycle for nuclear plant presupposes that a high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear
reactor (HTGR) is the heat source for the gas-turbine cycle. Such a reactor-turbine combination
uses helium gas as the reactor coolant and gas-turbine cycle working fluid in a closed cycle.
Figure 13.3: (a) A schematic diagram for a combined cycle with a nuclear gas turbine and fossil-
fuel fired steam turbine (b) T-s diagram of helium and steam cycles
Page 3 of 4
Lecture 13
Helium at 1 (Fig 13.3 (a) and (b)) is compressed in a helium compressor (HeC) to 2. It is then
preheated in a regenerator (R) to 3, enters the HTGR, and leaves at 4 at 1435 to 1470 oF (780 to
800oC). It expands in the helium turbine (HeT) to 5 and enters the regenerator. The energy left in
the gas at 6 is finally transferred to the steam cycle in a closed-type steam feedwater heat (FWH).
The helium, back at 1, reenters the helium compressor.
The steam cycle is fairly standard. Feedwater leaves the FWH at 7, enters the fossil-fueled steam
generator (SG), and leaves it as superheated steam at 8. This expands in the steam turbine (ST)
and enters the condenser at 9. Condensate at 10 is pumped by pump (P), after which it enters the
FWH to repeat the cycle.
It can be seen that the gas and steam cycles are coupled only by the FWH, that the heat generated
in the HTGR is completely utilized in both cycles, and that heat is rejected only in the steam
condenser.
For decades vapor power plants fueled by coal have been the workhorses of U.S. electricity
generation. However, human-health and environmental-impact issues linked to coal combustion
have placed this type of power generation under a cloud. In light of large coal reserves and the
critical importance of electricity to our society, major governmental and private-sector efforts are
aimed at developing alternative power generation technologies using coal, but with fewer adverse
effects. In this section, we consider one such technology: integrated gasification combined-cycle
(IGCC) power plants.
Page 4 of 4
Lecture 13
An IGCC power plant integrates a coal gasifier with a combined gas turbine–vapor power plant
like that considered previously. Key elements of an IGCC plant are shown in Fig. 13.4.
Gasification is achieved through controlled combustion of coal with oxygen in the presence of
steam to produce syngas (synthesis gas) and solid waste. Oxygen is provided to the gasifier by the
companion air separation unit. Syngas exiting the gasifier is mainly composed of carbon
monoxide and hydrogen. The syngas is cleaned of pollutants and then fired in the gas turbine
combustor.
In IGCC plants, pollutants (sulfur compounds, mercury, and particulates) are removed before
combustion when it is more effective to do so, rather than after combustion as in conventional
coal-fueled power plants. While IGCC plants emit fewer sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, mercury,
and particulate emissions than comparable conventional coal plants, abundant solid waste is still
produced that must be responsibly managed.
Taking a closer look at Fig. 13.4, better IGCC plant performance can be realized through tighter
integration between the air-separation unit and combined cycle. For instance, by providing
compressed air from the gas turbine compressor to the air-separation unit, the compressor feeding
ambient air to the air-separation unit can be eliminated or reduced in size. Also, by injecting
nitrogen produced by the separation unit into the air stream entering the combustor, mass flow
rate through the turbine increases and therefore greater power is developed.
Only a few IGCC plants have been constructed worldwide thus far. Accordingly, only time will
tell if this technology will make significant inroads against coal-fired vapor power plants,
including the newest generation of supercritical plants. Proponents point to increased combined
cycle thermal efficiency as a way to extend the viability of U.S. coal reserves. Others say
investment might be better directed to technologies fostering use of renewable sources of energy
for power generation than to technologies fostering use of coal, which has so many adverse
effects related to its utilization.