Jump to content

Repowering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.174.182.32 (talk) at 05:57, 10 August 2016 (→Wind power). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Repowering is the process of replacing older power stations with newer ones that either have a greater nameplate capacity or more efficiency which results in a net increase of power generated.[1] Repowering can happen in several different ways. It can be as small as switching out and replacing a boiler, to as large as replacing the entire system to create a more powerful system entirely. There are many upsides to repowering. The simple act of refurbishing the old with the new is in itself beneficial alongside the cost reduction for keeping the plant running. With less costs and a higher energy output, the process is excessively beneficial.[2]

Examples

Wind power

Countries like Germany and Denmark that have a large number of wind turbines installed relative to their total land size have resorted to repowering older turbines in order to increase wind power capacity and generation.[3] The power as well as use of wind farms has grown since the 1990s.

With new innovations to improve existing Wind power technology, the Repowering process is to upgrade these old wind turbines. By Repowering these old wind turbine with new upgrades this will greatly improve the efficiency of energy these new Wind turbine can generate. The new technology will greatly increase the amount of energy these Wind turbine can output. In California, the wind turbines are aging it would be effective to Repower the wind turbines but there seems to be a lack of economic incentive across legislature to put money forth for such processes. The inefficient turbines In California were implemented in the 1980s; they run at 1320 megawatts.[4]

The potential benefits that run along with repowering these California turbines are as follows:

  • Avian mortality may be reduced due to the installation of a smaller number of larger wind turbines.
  • Reduced aesthetic concerns to the extent that modern wind projects are deemed more visually appealing, even if they are taller.
  • “Increased renewable energy production due to the higher average capacity factors typical of new wind facilities.”
  • Use of existing infrastructure (for example, roads, substations), resulting in lower installation costs relative to new “greenfield” wind power projects.
  • “Use of newer wind turbine technology that can better support the state’s electrical grid with better power quality.”
  • Increased local and state tax base, plus positive construction employment opportunities.[5]

Although many barriers continue to hinder rapid wind‐project repowering, a primary barrier is simply that many existing, aging wind facilities are more profitable, in the near term, in continued operations than they might be if they pursue repowering with new wind turbines.[5] Therefore, it can be difficult to repower wind turbine facilities based on early numbers.

In 2005, a large majority of our wind turbines were of the size range between 51 kW to 100 kW. In 2002 there was first put in a Megawatt-class turbine (KEMA, Inc.). By 2007, California was only able to repower 20% of the potential power that being 365 MW of the 1,640MW maximum.

Coal-fired Power Plant to Gas

With new environmental regulation in the United States, coal-fired power plants are becoming obsolete. As many as three-fourths of coal-fired power plants are being shut down.[citation needed] Short-term options include retiring the plant or quick conversion to direct firing of the boiler with natural gas. Repowering these old coal burning power plants into gas burning boilers. It's estimated that as much as 30 gigawatts (GW) of existing U.S. power generation capacity could be lost through plant closings due to new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. There could be a saving of 20 percent of the capital cost instead of building brand new power plants founded by EPRI studied.

The configuration of these plants involves replacing the old coal boiler with gas-fired turbine (GT). The gas-fired outputs exhaust heat to a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG). From the output of the heat recovery steam generator it is run into a steam turbine which increases electricity production and the overall efficiency of the plant. The gas-fired turbine (GT) and the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) technology has been in utilize in many repowering projects over the past 20 years in the United States alone. With increasing environmental regulations of the United States Government and the lower fuel prices made the usage of GT/HRSG an option in utilizing to renew many old coal heating power plants. This modern gas turbines operate with higher efficiencies and adding a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) raises overall plant efficiency to 40 percent to 50 percent (HHV) above the range of most coal-fired plants, reducing fuel consumption and lowering plant emissions. Siemens Corporation are also using this technology by combing the gas turbine (GT) in conjunction with the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) with the steam turbine (ST) and the combined cycle power plants to produce the most efficient power generation facilities. Existing direct-fired plants can utilize this advanced cycle concept by adding a GT and a HRSG. This so-called repowering scheme makes the existing power generation facility equally efficient as modern combined cycle power plant.

Siemens Corporation developed two ways in powering these old coal plants. The first one is called a Full Powering and the second is called Parallel Powering. Full Powering is only used with old plants because the boilers has reached the life of its usage. Full powering replaces the original boiler and gas-turbine (GT) and heat recovery steam generator are added (HRSG). While compared to the full repowering concept, this repowering scheme achieves slightly lower efficiency. Due to the two independent steam sources for the steam turbine, this concept provides a higher fuel flexibility and also greater flexibility in respect to load variations.[6] [7] An example of a repowering project is of Fluor updating the Seward plant.The plant was a 521-MW coal-fired power plant. The plant burns waste coal. The project was to take three existing pulverized coal-fired boilers out and install two new Clean Coal Technology CFB boilers with major changes such as installing two Alstom CFB boilers along with an Alstom steam turbine generator. This plant is now the largest waste coal generator in the world with a capacity of 521-MW of capacity. It runs on 11,000 tons of waste coal per day.

[8] [9]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Repowering". Power Partners. 2009-12-11. Retrieved 2010-10-03.
  2. ^ Lawson,James (2013-06-07). "Repowering Gives New Life to Old Wind Sites". Retrieved 2014-11-14.
  3. ^ Fairley, Peter (January 2009). "Europe Replaces Old Wind Farms: More power from fewer, bigger turbines". IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved 2010-10-03.
  4. ^ "A Scoping Level Study of the Economics of Wind-Project Repowering Decisions in California" (PDF). KEMA, Inc. August 2008. Retrieved November 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  5. ^ a b California Energy Commission. (2006). Application for certification, Humboldt Bay Repowering Project. San Francisco, Calif.]: CH2M Hill. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-300-2008-004/CEC-300-2008-004.PDF
  6. ^ Jeff Brehm, Electric Power Research Institute (February 2014). "Repowering with Gas". Pennwell Power Site-Power Engineering. Retrieved 2014-11-13.
  7. ^ "Repowering". February 2014. Retrieved 2014-11-13.
  8. ^ "Projects". Flour. November 2014. Retrieved 2014-11-13.
  9. ^ "Repowering". February 2014. Retrieved 2014-11-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Repowering&oldid=733801946"