Professional Documents
Culture Documents
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
0
8
V
o
l
.
1
5
2
N
o
.
1
Vol. 152 No. 1 January 2008 www.powermag.com
Industry prognosis
for 2008:
Carbon paralysis
Applying water-stingy
technologies
Eliminate oil whip vibration
in steam turbines
Protect plant equipment
from voltage sags
vea a machIae aeeds to he amered
Your most valuable employees are your equipment, so it only makes sense to
treat them right. Conoco Hydroclear
Diamond Class
,
FOUNDATION fieldbus
or PACTware
as desired.
4. Believe it. Configuration takes only minutes. No calibration
is required. Accuracy is not affected by changing densities and dielectrics
or by high temperatures or pressures. For convenience the electronics
feature a quick connect/disconnect. Theres no moving parts to
ever wear out. Youll wonder why you waited so long.
For complete details on retrofitting torque tube displacers
with Eclipse Guided Wave Radar call 1-800-624-8765
or visit us online at magnetrol.com.
Worldwide Level and Flow Solutions
sm
5300 Belmont Road Downers Grove, IL 60515 630-969-4000 magnetrol.com
1. Retire it.
Having problems with
antiquated level controls?
Fed up with high mainte-
nance, recalibration shut-
downs or inaccuracies
caused by something as
simple as a specific gravity
change? Eclipse eliminates
these problems.
CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 12
5. Moses crossed another way, at the other end. Researchers at Utrecht Uni-
versity in The Netherlands suggest that 50 GW could be generated by a 20-mile-wide dam
across the Red Sea near its southern end. Courtesy: NASA
GLOBAL MONITOR
DELIVERS!
March 2008
Special report on the design,
operation, and maintenance
of gas turbinepowered
combined cycles
Next-generation FGD
systems gain acceptance
Time to go wireless at your
plant?
Harvey Research Ad-Q
readership study issue
Closing Date:
February 4, 2008
April 2008
ELECTRIC POWER 2008
Show Issue
Waste-to-energy plants
looking good again
Advanced plant maintenance
practices
Nuclear plant upgrades add
cheap capacity
Closing Date:
March 5, 2008
ACT NOW!
Reserve Your Ad
Contact your sales
representative
(listed on p. 2)
Your formula for water analysis.
To speak with a dedicated Industrial water expert, call 866-450-4248.
Or take advantage of our Live Help option at www.hach.com/power.
Innovative Process
Instrumentation
Expert Support
and Training
Integrated Lab Solutions
and Chemistries
Dependable Service
SOURCE CODE: M083AS HAC-0225
Products. Support. Expertise. Hach gives you the necessary tools to protect your critical components from
scaling and corrosion. With over 50 years of experience delivering the right solutions for boiler and cooling
water, Hach is your trusted partner in water analysis.
Manage your chemistry. Protect your assets.
Be Right
TM
2
0
0
7
B
e
n
e
t
e
c
h
.
BENETECH DELIVERS PROVEN SOLUTIONS that reduce O&M costs, lower risk profiles and increase efciencies. We have saved
our customers over $100 million through asset optimization, fuel exibility and P2 plant assessments.
With close to 100 PRB conversions and plant assessments completed, and over 900 million tons of coal transferred, Benetech has
the expertise to solve todays industry challenges.
www.BENETECHUSA.com
CIRCLE 17 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 22
FOCUS ON O&M
from Wonderware (www.wonderware.com),
a subsidiary of Invensys Systems Inc., pro-
vide the single control window to all areas
of the plant. The chillers and the combus-
tion turbine are operated separately by
the same operator from the facilitys only
control room (Figure 3). Different-color
backgrounds (blue for the chillers, green
for the CT) distinguish the two systems.
Significantly, the control system en-
ables all equipment of the CHP plant at
ASU to be monitored and controlled re-
motely by operators at another Northwind
site via the companys wide-area network.
That feature allowed operators of the ASU
plant to be trained onsite without disrupt-
ing operations on campus while the system
was operated from Northwinds downtown
Phoenix headquarters.
The Tempe plants control system also
shares information with ASUs energy in-
formation system (EIS) through a Modbus
interface. The EIS, which is maintained by
APS Energy Services, provides detailed in-
formation about individual buildings en-
ergy usage. The university uses that data
to develop building-specific invoices for
electricity, gas, chilled and hot water, and
steam usage.
Contributed by Ed Antone
(edmund.antone@apses.com), senior
project manager of APS Energy Services
and Tim Schweitzer
(tim.schweitzer@mtlmost.com), project
manager for the control system vendor.
SAFETY
Safety stuffers
entertain as they inform
Ordinary Coffee spilled on the stairs turned
them into a Deathtrap! Those stairs were
Deadly When Wet. Starring Slick DeMise.
Rated P for Perilous.
Is that an advertisement for the lat-
est direct-to-video horror movie? No, its
text from the front of a safety stuffer
published by the Mechanical Contractors
Association (MCA) of Chicago and United
Association Local Union (LU) 597. The
small flyers accompany the weekly pay-
checks of LU 597 workers employed by
member contractors of MCA Chicago (Fig-
ure 4). The one quoted above has its key
message on the back: Please, clean up
spills as soon as possible.
Twenty-six different stuffers are be-
ing distributed, each conveying its safe-
ty message in the form of a scary movie
ad, complete with eerie illustrations. The
safety stuffers are being paid for by the LU
597/MCA Joint Safety Committee.
The safety stuffers remind workers to
observe important safety measures on
the job, explained Stephen Lamb, execu-
tive VP of MCA Chicago. Its mechanical
contractors install and service heating,
ventilating, air conditioning, and refrig-
eration systems, as well as fire sprinklers
and plumbing and process piping. We
have the safest workforce in the industry,
and we hope that stuffers help keep it
that way.
The safety stuffers cover a wide vari-
ety of vitally important worksite issues,
added James Buchanan, LU 597s business
manager. There are stuffers that explain
appropriate lifting techniques, proper lad-
der usage, the need for personal protective
equipment, lockout/tagout procedures, er-
gonomics, fire safety, and more. There are
even stuffers covering sexual harassment
and workplace violence.
Nehlsen Communications, a marketing
and public relations firm, helped MCA Chi-
cago develop the safety stuffers. Safety
is a huge issue to all of our construction
clients, said Nancy Nehlsen, president
of the agency. We have to find ways to
get workers attention and make them
constantly aware of hazards on the job.
Todays younger workers are used to the
Internet and high-energy video games, so
they like their information quick and en-
3. Screening room. Color-coded back-
grounds differentiate the controls of the chill-
ers and the combustion turbine. Courtesy:
APS Energy Services
4. Always think safety. Chicago contracting unions have developed a series of unique
safety stuffers that are distributed in weekly paycheck envelopes to remind members about
the importance of safety. Source: Nehlsen Communications
6646 Complex Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70809 225-906-2343 info@orioninstruments.com
The Genuine Article. Developed and patented
by Orion, Aurora is the worlds first redundant
Magnetic Level Indicator. Its engineered for tough
applications.
More Powerful. Auroras Eclipse
Guided Wave
Radar transmitter uses advanced hardware and soft-
ware for greater reliability and performance. Eclipse
is now suitable for SIL 2 loops.
Unparalleled Ease of Use. Aurora is easy to set
up. Its unaffected by high temperatures and pres-
sures, steam, coating, aggressive acids or changing
specific gravities and dielectrics.
PACTware
As the alternative energy industry continues its rapid growth, the need for innovation across this complex
risk landscape has never been greater. AIG Global Marine and Energy has a long history of offering
non-traditional products and services that respond to evolving renewable energy and climate change issues.
Our Global Alternative Energy Practice is staffed with experienced energy specialists skilled in helping
companies develop sophisticated and cohesive risk transfer, loss control and financial solutions that meet their
specific business needs. So while the world of alternative energy continues to grow, we can help you grow with it.
SERVICES INCLUDE:
Insurance Loss Control Consulting
Risk Assessment Services Engineering Evaluations
Technical Services Financing and Investments
CIRCLE 22 ON READER SERVICE CARD
POWER
|
January 2008 36
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
mium as they operate. The emissions profile
of gas plants looked good, particularly com-
pared to coal. Through the 90s, environ-
mentalists gave gas a pass, seeing it as the
transition fuel to a renewables future.
That changed around the end of 2001
(about the same time as the fall of the House
of Enron). Gas inventories plummeted, in
part due to the collective demand of all those
new combined-cycle plants. Prices became
volatile. Generators that had dashed to gas
now fled from it. Scores of gas-fired projects
announced late in the gas boom never made
it off the drawing board.
Today, gas has regained some of its glit-
ter. As crude oil prices surged above $90/bbl,
the alleged linkage between the prices of oil
and gas proved to be a myth. Gas prices have
stabilized. They appear to have leveled off at
around $7 per thousand cubic feetwell be-
low the prices seen earlier this decade.
As a result, gencos are again considering
natural gas plants their least-risky option, in
light of gas plants low capital and construc-
tion costs and the political incorrectness of
the nuclear and coal alternatives. Randy
Zwirn, CEO of Siemens Power Generation,
told an industry meeting last year, By de-
fault, the only technology thats going to be
available is gas-fired generation.
Although attention recently has focused
on new nukes and cancelled coal, gas has
been showing stealth strength. A recent EIA
report noted that natural gasfired genera-
tion showed the highest rate of growth from
2005 to 2006 of the traditional energy sourc-
es, accounting for 20% of all new genera-
tion in 2006. Compared to 2005 figures, said
the EIA, gas-fired generation in 2006 grew
by 7.3%, while nuclear grew by 0.7% (due to
upratings and better plant performance) and
coal fell by 1.1%.
Increasing gas reserves
fuel optimism
Is enough gas available to supply new power
plants as well as residential and industrial
furnaces? Last October, the DOEs Potential
Gas Committee, a group of volunteer energy
experts, issued a new estimate of recoverable
domestic gas reserves that is 17% higher than
one made in 2004. The committee said the
U.S. has some 1,525 trillion cubic feet of re-
coverable gas, compared to its 2004 estimate
of 1,308 tcf.
Thats the largest increase since the com-
mittee started estimating reserves in 1964, ac-
cording to The Energy Daily (like POWER,
an Access Intelligence publication). The com-
mittee said new reserve estimates exceed the
36 tcf of gas that U.S. producers extracted be-
tween 2004 and 2006.
Meanwhile, the 20072008 winter as-
sessment by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) found, For the second
year, the prospects for natural gas markets
as we head into this winter are very good.
FERC staffers said gas storage is robust,
winter temperatures are forecast to be mild,
new pipelines and liquefied natural gas
(LNG) terminals are coming on-line, and
gas in storage should exceed record levels as
winter kicks in.
The FERC staff report concluded, Basi-
cally, we expect to see full storage this year.
Effectively full storage goes a long way to-
ward protecting the country from the disrup-
tions and price spikes associated with tight
supply/demand balances in the winter. If
the forecasts for a warmer-than-normal win-
ter are accurate, said the report, gas prices
could remain stable or even see some down-
ward pressure.
Last November, the EIA reported that
proved U.S. natural gas reserves grew by 3%
in 2006 to 211 tcf. Thats the highest reserve
level since 1976, the agency added. The driv-
er of that growth was the use of new drilling
techniques that have given explorers access
to unconventional gas, such as the Barnett
Shale in Texas. According to the EIA, addi-
tions to gas reserves in 2006 replaced 136%
of the gas produced that year. It was the
eighth straight year that proved gas reserves
have grown.
Concrete evidence that utilities are not shy-
ing away from natural gas comes from Duke
Energy, which last summer asked the NCUC
to approve up to 1,600 MW of new combined-
cycle gas-fired capacity after having its pro-
posal to build the same amount of coal-fired
capacity turned down. Florida utilities are also
looking seriously at new gas units, likewise
following rejection of coal-fired plants.
A most unusual gas-fired plant has been
proposed by Basin Electric Power Coopera-
tive, a large generation and transmission co-
op based in Bismarck, N.D. In late October
2007, Basin said it would like to build and
commission a 300-MW unit in the eastern
part of the state by 2012. At the heart of Deer
Creek Station would be a simple-cycle com-
bustion turbine generator and a heat-recov-
ery steam turbine generator. Both would run
about 12 to 16 hours a day in intermediate
service, following load on the systems of the
distribution cooperatives that Basin supplies.
Whats unusual about that? Nothing. How-
ever, Deer Creek would burn synthetic gas
(syngas), rather than natural gas. The supply
would come from Basins Dakota gasifica-
tion project, which uses Lurgi technology
to turn lignite into syngas that then can be
transported by the Northern Border Pipeline.
Developed in the 1980s, the Dakota project
is Americas only large-scale converter of
coal to gas. The fact that it has never been
replicated in the U.S. suggests that there are
cheaper ways to go.
LNG lags behind
Early last year, there was buzz about lique-
fied natural gas. By the beginning of 2008,
it had quieted to a murmur. Ambitious LNG
projects became stalled as a result of intense
local opposition and stabilization of the con-
ventional U.S. natural gas market.
According to FERC, five LNG receiving
terminals with a total capacity of about 6 bil-
lion cubic feet (bcf) per day operate in the
U.S. today. The agency has approved another
21 projects but acknowledges that most of
them will never be built.
For example, California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger in May last year rejected a
plan for an $800 million LNG terminal off
the Southern California coast proposed by an
Anglo-Australian company. Earlier, the Cali-
fornia Coastal Commission had unanimously
rejected the project.
Nor does there appear to be a crying need
for LNG in todays market. A Reuters story
last October noted that LNG imports to the
U.S. were expected to continue a slide begun
several months earlier, as steady demand
from the Far East and early buying from Eu-
rope soak up more spot supplies.
According to the Houston-based consul-
tancy Waterborne Energy, U.S. LNG im-
ports in September 2007 were about 45 bcf,
or about half the 89 bcf imported in August
2007. The firms estimate for October was
less than 45 bcf. Weather was partially re-
sponsible, said Waterborne. While unseason-
ably cool weather in the UK raised natural
gas prices to about $9/mmBtu, a mild autumn
in the U.S. Northeast saw gas prices drop to
about $6/mmBtu at the Henry Hub market.
The LNG flowed to the UK.
In their forecast of natural gas markets for
2007 and 2008, FERC staff portrayed LNG
as a swing resource. According to FERCs di-
rector of gas market oversight, Steve Harvey,
LNG acts as insurance. Depending on in-
ternational gas prices, he said, supply may
or may not be available to U.S. markets. So
much for the LNG boom.
Renewables ahead by a nose
Wind power has been soaring for several
years, driven by state mandates (renewable
portfolio standards) and federal subsidies
(the production tax credit). But the boom
represents a start from a tiny base; wind
power remains a miniscule contributor to
the national electric supply. Considering its
inherent dispatchability problems (wind is
intermittent) and the need for backup genera-
tion if the resource is to be a major contribu-
REACH
more generating company
decision makers than at
ANY other power industry
event i n the U. S.
May 6 8, 2008 Baltimore Convention Center
www.electricpowerexpo.com
POWER
|
January 2008 38
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
tor to total U.S. supply, winds future could
be summed up as positive but limited.
In November, the American Wind Energy
Association (AWEA) upped to 4,000 MW
its earlier prediction that 3,000 MW of wind
power would be added to U.S. grids in 2007.
Either number would top the 2006 record of
2,454 MW. In its second-quarter report on
the state of the generation niche, Americas
biggest wind power promoter said 935 MW
of capacity were commissioned during the
quarter, bringing first-half 2007 capacity
additions to 1,059 MW. In the third quarter
alone, 1,251 MW of wind power were added,
including 600 MW in Texas alone.
But there is a supply-chain cloud on wind
energys horizon, according to AWEA. The
news release announcing the Q2 report
warned, Wind power developers report that
turbine availability is a limiting factorin
other words, there is demand for even more
wind energy but companies cant build more
projects because there arent enough manu-
facturing facilities for turbines and turbine
parts in the country because the U.S. govern-
ments intermittent policy toward renewables
has discouraged companies from investing in
manufacturing facilities.
If conventional economics holds, the short-
fall in the supply of wind turbines will raise
the cost of wind farm construction. However,
unmet demand for ingredients common to all
power projectsconcrete, rebar, steel, labor,
and other commoditiesare bidding up their
costs, too. Its a sellers market, which further
undermines the economics of wind power.
That highlights a policy problem for wind.
Congress refuses to make a long-term com-
mitment to the 1.8 cents/kWh production tax
credit for renewable energy plants. The view
of many legislators is that the credit should
be a short-term subsidy to help the industry
reach commercial viability, as opposed to a
permanent entitlement.
The wind industry sees the sop differently.
Said Randall Swisher, AWEA executive di-
rector, What is critical at this juncture is for
the U.S. government to put in place a full-val-
ue, long-term extension of the production tax
credit and a national renewable energy port-
folio standard requiring that utilities gener-
ate more electricity from renewable sources.
These policies will give the clear, big-picture
signal of support for renewable energy that
this country urgently needs.
Renewable resources technologies as a
whole arent proliferating nearly as quickly
as wind power. According to the EIA, wind
generation grew from 3,684 MW in 2001 to
8,706 MW in 2005. But the entire category of
renewable energy generation grew only from
95,096 MW in 2001 to 98,791 MW.
The vast majority of American renewable-
fueled power production (using the EIAs
definition) comprises conventional hydro
plants, the bane of most mainstream envi-
ronmentalists. Hydros heyday here seems to
have passed; no one is proposing new proj-
ects and old ones are fading away. In 2001,
big hydro generated 78,916 MW; in 2005,
the figure was 77,541 MW.
Other renewable generation tech-
nologiesphotovoltaic arrays, biomass
combustion, and geothermal energy extrac-
tionremain trivial and slow-growing. Na-
tionwide, solar electric generation accounted
for 392 MW in 2001 and 411 MW in 2005,
and just a handful of larger projects are on the
horizon. Biomass generationfrom plants
burning wood, wood waste, and municipal
solid waste (including landfill gas)made
the slimmest of gains: from 9,708 MW in
2001 to 9,848 MW in 2005. There is little
evidence to suggest that any of these proven
renewable fuel technologies will grow sub-
stantially in 2008. However, some of their
less-conventional brethren are enjoying ma-
jor development funding (see Google this:
Clean and cheap power ).
Your turn
There you have itour thoughts about what
to expect in 2008. Weve given you the best
information and data available, and we en-
courage you to use them to form your own
opinions about U.S. generation options. We
havent been shy about telling you what we
think, and we hope youll repay the favor.
Send your comments to editor@powermag
.com and well publish the most interesting
letters.
Google this: Clean and cheap power
Renewable energy has attracted the big-
gest cyber-gorilla of all: Google, which
has announced a crash program to develop
1,000 MW of generation capacity capable
of producing electricity more cleanly and
cheaply than burning coal.
The search engine giant said it is al-
ready hiring engineers and energy experts
and plans to invest hundreds of millions
of dollars in renewable energy projects,
starting with innovative solar thermal
technology.
The company suggested it could lever-
age its experience building complex, elec-
tricity-hungry data centers to help clean
energy entrepreneurs speed the deploy-
ment of utility-scale, green power tech-
nologies. Sergey Brin, Googles cofounder
and president of technology, put the com-
panys program in a broader context, say-
ing: Cheap renewable energy is not only
critical for the environment, but also vital
for economic development in many places
where there is limited affordable energy
of any kind.
Googles self-admittedly lofty goal of
1,000 MW of deployed, cheaper-than-coal
clean energy sets a new mark for ambi-
tion. How audacious is it? The U.S. wind
industry, using a proven technology and
subsidized by taxpayers, installed just
4,000 MW last year.
Google said it already is working with
two small renewable energy start-ups in
California. Their work, while still in the
early stages of development, illustrates
the potential of next-generation green
power technologies to change the eco-
nomic equation.
One is eSolar Inc., based in Pasadena,
which says it has developed a utility-
scale solar thermal technology that can
economically heat water to drive a power-
generating turbine. The companys modular
approach calls for deploying heliostats
moving mirrorsto track the movement of
the sun and direct solar energy to receiving
towers that generate steam. The company
says each of its modules can generate 25
MW, with multiple modules providing op-
erational redundancy and size.
The other company is Makani Power
Inc., based in Alameda. Makani (the Ha-
waiian word for wind) says it is develop-
ing high-altitude wind energy extraction
technologies. Though the companys Web
site provides few details, a fact sheet re-
leased by Google shows a large sail-like
structure that would presumably catch the
wind, which is much steadier worldwide
thousands of feet up than at the height of
even the tallest wind turbine towers.
The clean energy initiative will be led by
Google.org, the companys philanthropic
arm. That no doubt comes as a relief to
Google shareholders, especially in light
of company officials remarks about their
investment criteria for the program. But
its name, RE<C (an equation stating that
renewable energy is cheaper than coal),
reflects Googles geekiness and reinforces
its brand.
PRB
COAL 101
TOPICS
What makes PRB coal
different
Fire and safety risks of
PRB coal
Handling PRB coal
PRB coal in the boiler
Checklist for converting
to PRB coal
Information about the
PRB Coal Users Group
PRESENTERS
Robert Taylor, AEP
Corp., Chairman of
PRB CUG
Randy Rahm, COO
Ethanex Entergy, Inc.,
Executive Dir. of
PRB CUG
Greg Krieser, Plant
Manager, Omaha Public
Power District, Vice
Chairman-Generation of
PRG CUG
Edward Douberly,
President, FPE Group
Inc., Director of
PRB CUG
An overview of the requirements to
safely and efciently use Powder River
Basin coal.
Review the FREE archived webinar
This presentation is an excellent source of information for
those new to PRB coal (and its challenges) as well as for those
who have been using the fuel for some time and need to review
current best practices.
Thanks to industry sponsors, you can see the presentation
archived at the PRB CUG site, POWERmag.com, or the
sponsors web sites.
This event is presented by the PRB Coal Users Group (PRB
CUG) and hosted by POWER magazine to discuss basic
guidelines when using PRB coal, including fuel conversion.
SPONSORS:
International, Inc.
View at www.powermag.com/prb101
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 40
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Greater fuel diversity needed to meet
growing U.S. electricity demand
Industrial Info Resources strengths are tracking capital projects and cost pro-
jections and providing intelligence about the power generation market,
among others. IIR has used its large industry databases and numerous
industry contacts to develop its outlook for 2008. Heres what you should
expect and plan for this year.
By Britt Burt and Shane Mullins, Industrial Info Resources
C
ontinued economic growth in the U.S.
over the next several years will inevi-
tably drive growth in electricity con-
sumption (Figure 1). Meeting the projected
40% increase in national demand by 2030
that todays double-digit annual growth rates
will produce will require building a lot more
power plantssome to replace the capacity
of retired units (Tables 1 and 2).
Who will use that new power, and for
what? Demand growth by the commercial
sector and its services providers will outstrip
that from the residential sector and industrial
users. Increases in population and disposable
income will whet the appetite for more prod-
ucts and services, in turn increasing the sizes
of residences and business floor space. More
electricity will be needed to heat and cool
those areas and to power appliances, comput-
ers, and other electrical devices.
As electricity demand grows, so does the
need to diversify fuel sources to ensure sup-
ply reliability. Until 2001, the U.S. power in-
dustry expected to rely heavily on natural gas
to meet growing demand. During the 1990s,
more than 300,000 MW of natural gasfired
capacity were built. Since then, natural disas-
ters and international politics have shed light
on the risks of relying too heavily on one
fuel source. So while power project devel-
opers still consider new gas-fired plants an
option, they and utilities are also implement-
ing strategies to build and better utilize coal-
fired units, construct more renewable energy
plants, and even develop a second wave of
U.S. nuclear reactors to meet growing elec-
tricity demand (Tables 3 and 4).
Coal: The king still gets no respect
Despite the best efforts of environmentalists
and renewable-energy advocates, coal still
fuels about 50% of U.S. electricity genera-
tion, and its share may rise. A boom in coal
plant construction is in full swing: 27 units
totaling 12,000 MW, collectively worth more
than $20 billion, are already past the ground-
breaking phase. Those 12,000 MW represent
34% of all capacity currently being built in
the U.S. Of the total, 1,174 MW are expected
to come on-line this year, to be followed by
5,888 MW in 2009 and 4,700 MW in 2010.
The near-term units signify only the be-
ginning of a longer-term expansion of U.S.
coal-fired generation. In addition to the 27
units that have already poured concrete, an-
other 243 units representing 74,000 MW and
worth $120 billion are on the drawing boards
of utilities and independent developers. Of
that total, 26,000 MW are scheduled to break
ground this year, with the rest following be-
tween 2009 and 2011.
Utilities have proposed building 84 of the
243 longer-term units to increase their gen-
erating capacity by 31,300 MW. They envi-
sion building 44 units with a total capacity of
16,300 MW as greenfield plants. The other
40 units, representing 15,000 MW, would be
additions to existing power stations.
In contrast, private energy producers have
proposed 159 coal-fired generating units able
to produce 42,700 MW. Of these, 120 units
and 31,900 MW are planned to be part of
greenfield plants while 39 units and 10,800
MW will be added to existing plants.
The vast majority of the projects in devel-
opment will rely on conventional pulverized
coal combustion. But an increasing number
plan to use integrated gasification combined-
cycle (IGCC) or circulating fluidized bed
(CFB) boiler technology. Specifically, 40
IGCC plants totaling 23,000 MW, and 22
CFB units totaling 6,600 MW have been pro-
posed nationwide.
New coal plants are being proposed not
just to meet future demand but also to re-
place coal plants scheduled for retirement.
1. Double digits across the board. New generation capacity is being developed that has
planned commercial start-up dates between 2008 and 2012. Source: Industrial Info Resources
2007 by Industrial Information Resources - Sugar Land, TX
54%
West Coast
39,319 MW
38%
Rocky Mountains
28,394 MW
4%
4%
25%
5%
15% 55%
40%
6%
10%
30%
33%
12%
25%
4%
42%
16%
20%
56% 44%
5%
34%
60%
40%
38%
5%
14%
47%
19%
Midwest
26,432 MW
Great Lakes
31,155 MW
New England
9,726 MW
Mid-Atlantic
28,348 MW
Northeast
21,028 MW
Southeast
25,582 MW
Southwest
44,218 MW
18%
Coal 28% Nuclear 20% Renewable energy 33% Project locations Natural gas 19%
50%
14%
18%
January 2008
|
POWER 41
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Table 1. Actual and planned U.S. power generation resource growth (19982008) by state. Source: Industrial Info Resources
Operational
1998
Added
19992007
Retired/
mothballed
since 1999
Currently
operational
Actual growth
since
Jan. 1, 1999
Operating
fossil capacity
>40 years old
Generation
under
construction
Announced
commercial
start-up
in 2008
a
23,207 276 10,018 57 266 14 32,549 304 9,341 28 6,408 38 621 3
2,358 357 401 56 110 57 2,546 325 188 -32 125 23 50 8 50 11
15,601 162 11,140 91 351 17 25,951 211 10,349 49 1,687 26 606 7 308 8
10,481 139 5,921 52 1,541 40 14,817 143 4,336 4 507 8 940 6 60 3
57,184 1,142 16,951 285 5,034 121 64,825 1,252 7,641 110 10,994 65 2,083 16 2,164 28
8,472 194 4,441 88 131 10 12,375 253 3,903 59 1,276 47 1,639 21 563 20
8,382 114 2,004 31 428 19 8,188 108 -194 -6 991 15 0 0 121 7
2,612 40 935 9 17 4 3,392 43 780 3 663 19 0 0 0 0
44,681 572 18,078 157 2,533 90 59,273 575 14,592 3 5,587 59 2,598 20 1,239 15
26,794 316 12,115 103 1,634 57 37,876 363 11,082 47 2,938 28 0 0 21 2
1,847 83 423 13 11 4 2,256 91 409 8 500 14 0 0 80 2
2,471 89 629 10 17 4 3,086 96 615 7 7 4 223 4 604 14
39,544 550 14,559 262 4,410 123 45,784 630 6,240 80 9,209 139 2,198 5 2,618 22
25,248 217 5,108 73 880 19 28,731 256 3,483 39 6,467 85 131 1 231 3
9,222 327 3,717 149 103 25 12,609 425 3,387 98 1,730 122 463 8 905 13
10,746 328 1,649 66 448 46 11,673 303 927 -25 1,949 109 506 15 1,686 24
18,882 128 4,345 54 218 7 22,254 161 3,372 33 4,908 35 1,028 2 0 0
22,736 272 7,865 74 944 53 28,384 267 5,648 -5 3,790 47 803 9 83 6
3,583 251 1,721 17 229 30 4,017 214 435 -37 281 11 13 1 111 2
12,627 136 1,035 46 19 2 13,110 164 483 28 2,836 30 33 4 258 9
12,507 238 4,547 39 1,200 28 14,813 205 2,306 -33 1,644 30 30 4 347 10
28,016 450 6,351 104 847 72 31,843 477 3,827 27 5,853 114 54 2 245 5
10,683 314 3,818 104 315 25 13,694 349 3,011 35 2,452 69 1,612 19 1,310 21
7,675 79 9,600 89 1,912 36 17,045 176 9,370 97 1,643 23 1 1 18 5
17,760 290 4,544 96 108 13 21,650 347 3,889 57 3,098 83 1,322 5 126 10
5,097 82 492 15 17 1 5,506 93 409 11 50 1 20 1 402 5
5,696 99 1,187 31 4 4 6,766 116 1,070 17 953 44 797 3 130 2
7,545 116 4,397 52 1,837 6 10,106 163 2,561 47 354 6 1,488 18 1,533 21
2,890 91 1,325 14 78 10 4,142 98 1,252 7 274 7 0 0 24 1
19,426 285 3,813 54 2,694 69 18,895 247 -530 -38 2,370 24 3 1 1 3
6,035 121 1,839 22 171 14 7,410 102 1,376 -19 1,271 24 650 4 1,248 8
41,223 710 5,582 104 2,148 78 40,808 674 -415 -36 8,308 77 1,584 15 1,009 15
23,819 308 4,567 39 145 15 28,080 317 4,261 9 5,031 44 284 17 4 2
4,877 30 194 11 5,069 40 192 10 561 10 347 4 651 9
31,783 329 7,501 116 924 32 35,350 352 3,568 23 8,468 95 67 1 67 1
14,613 214 7,021 62 280 27 21,192 237 6,578 23 2,317 73 372 5 122 2
12,224 220 2,831 36 108 12 13,366 234 1,142 14 39 3 145 2 515 11
43,145 434 9,816 90 2,288 56 47,380 413 4,235 -21 6,900 78 701 22 304 21
1,581 37 798 15 1 1 1,889 48 308 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
19,273 245 5,279 43 155 11 24,175 268 4,901 23 1,845 29 580 1 4 2
3,049 50 372 11 75 1 3,333 58 284 8 47 7 185 2 710 8
20,565 209 2,812 54 185 12 23,035 252 2,470 43 7,334 47 0 0 0 0
80,025 804 35,497 294 13,529 207 100,238 826 20,212 22 8,441 105 5,689 30 3,524 29
5,944 85 1,962 52 180 25 7,788 109 1,844 24 545 12 75 4 395 10
986 41 6 4 9 5 965 35 -21 -6 44 3 0 0 35 1
20,163 255 4,380 81 320 18 24,227 313 4,064 58 3,862 39 360 2 541 5
26,525 314 2,863 73 254 18 28,234 363 1,709 49 0 0 1,074 9 1,303 11
1,136 30 162 9 706 9 -430 -21 0 0 0 0 0 0
15,678 102 1,350 22 8 1 16,989 116 1,310 14 4,833 45 864 2 600 4
13,451 349 3,897 68 463 29 16,209 362 2,758 13 2,870 62 2,794 10 1,699 20
6,473 65 721 21 0 1 7,196 85 722 20 709 17 482 2 436 5
859,467 12,735 263,538 3,518 49,741 1,578 1,035,937 13,728 176,470 993 147,055 2,109 36,010 320 28,402 436
0 0
0 0
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Washington, D.C.
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total U.S.
MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units MW Units
Note: a. Approximately 70% of the total is expected to reach commercial start-up in 2008.
0 0
POWER
|
January 2008 42
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Since the beginning of 2002, 102 coal-burning units totaling 5,200
MW have been decommissioned. Another 83 units representing 9,363
MW are scheduled to be shut down for good by the end of 2012.
Natural gas: Still a contender
During the past decade, an aggressive push to build gas-fired generat-
ing capacity resulted in 300,000 MW being added to U.S. grids. But
economic downturns, questionable industry business practices, and
closer scrutiny of demand forecasts combined to slow that boom. It
ended in 2005the worst Atlantic hurricane season on recordwhen
storms damaged many rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, driving gas prices
above $15/mmBtu. The price surge was a message to the U.S. power
industry that depending heavily on one fuel is risky business.
Despite the recent slowdown in activity, natural gas is expected
to remain a leading power plant fuel. Gas-fired combustion turbine
plants, operating either in simple-cycle or combined-cycle mode, still
run cleaner than coal plants (making their permitting easier) and are
much faster to build.
Construction kickoffs for gas-fired generating units began declin-
ing steadily from their peak in 2001, when units representing more
than 73,000 MW broke ground. The slide continued through 2004,
when only 5,600 MW of gas-fired capacity followed suit. Since 2005,
the pace has picked up, and it looks likely to accelerate. For example,
158 gas-fired units totaling 15,469 MW are currently in construction.
The latter number comprises 7,000 MW being built as part of green-
field units and 8,456 MW being added to existing plants.
To help meet longer-term demand, 438 gas-fueled units totaling
50,900 MW are in various stages of development. Of those totals,
18 units totaling more than 2,000 MW were scheduled to have bro-
ken ground before the end of 2007 (after this issue goes to press),
with the other 48,000 MW and change slated to follow by 2015. This
year alone will see construction kickoffs for at least 9,000 MW of
the 24,000 MW currently under development. The round numbers are
Table 2. U.S. power generation construction kickoff summary (20002008) by generation technology. Source: Industrial Info Resources
Unit type
Combined-cycle
combustion turbine
Combined-cycle
single-shaft system
Combined-cycle
steam turbine with
supplementary firing
Combined-cycle
steam turbine with
waste heat only
Hydraulic turbine
Hydraulic turbine,
reversible
(pumped storage)
Internal combustion
engine
Other (solar/fuel cell)
Simple-cycle
combustion turbine
Steam turbine
Turbo expander
Wind turbine
Total
2000 2004 2001 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002
Units
196
10
47
28
786
3
8
0
12
192
0
288
2
MW
29,260
2,678
8,758
4,359
69,026
44
410
0
753
337
0
22,422
5
Units
186
1
77
28
817
1
23
0
10
178
0
313
0
MW
30,954
13
15,904
4,741
77,309
8
1,282
0
666
453
0
23,288
0
71
0
15
21
361
0
8
0
3
108
0
135
0
Units MW
0
0
0
0
9,469
3,332
3,660
26,356
277
366
241
9,011
0
Units
46
0
16
8
265
5
26
1
5
104
0
54
0
MW
5,562
0
2,869
1,120
15,704
140
1,567
5
1,261
256
0
2,924
0
Units
24
0
5
10
223
4
19
1
13
107
0
40
0
MW
2,304
0
759
517
9,117
6
840
1
1,561
283
0
2,848
0
Units
17
2
4
6
221
6
30
12
22
89
0
33
0
MW
2,203
800
1,024
591
13,624
73
2,698
92
4,246
178
0
1,719
0
Units
20
0
5
7
227
6
48
2
17
93
2
25
2
MW
2,764
0
731
995
17,442
81
5,205
23
5,723
89
40
1,727
64
Units
26
0
7
4
290
11
79
6
29
57
0
65
6
MW
3,716
0
1,439
630
23,281
65
7,194
50
5,642
250
0
4,220
76
Units
99
0
21
31
731
39
203
26
89
89
7
118
9
MW
15,470
0
4,308
5,068
75,277
371
21,088
610
18,215
456
655
8,092
943
Note: a. Based on construction kickoff dates, not operational dates.
a
The 2008 Marmaduke
Surfaceblow Calendar
POWER
presents
Just $9.99 each ($8.99 plus shipping & handling)
(Orders ship via USPS and must be prepaid
via check or credit card.)
TradeFair Group Publications
11000 Richmond Ave., Suite 500
Houston, TX 77042
Phone: 832-242-1969
Fax: 832-251-8963
E-mail: books@powermag.com
Limited number of calendars
availableorder today:
January 2008
|
POWER 43
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
necessary because permitting and financing
difficulties could delay some projects.
Nuclear: Making a comeback
The drive to diversify generations fuel mix
may be helped by the possible licensing of
dozens of new reactors. They would be the
first ordered in the U.S. since 1978, one year
before Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island plant
in Pennsylvania partially melted down. Cur-
rently, nuclear generation supplies about 20%
of Americas electricity. Although nuclear
plants are more expensive than coal plants
(taking into account the costs of licens-
ing, decommissioning, and waste disposal),
nuclear fuel is half the price of coal, so the
plants total production costs are about the
same: about $30/MWh. Notably, unlike coal
plants, nuclear plants emit no CO
2
, a major
contributor to global warming.
Early this decade, reactor vendors and util-
ities began lobbying the federal government
to reduce the considerable financial risks of
building new plants. They succeeded by hav-
ing the Energy Policy Act of 2005 include tax
incentives and loan guarantees for up to 6,000
MW of new nuclear capacity. Earlier, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had
streamlined the lengthy processes for permit-
ting and licensing new reactors by creating a
new system for issuing combined construc-
tion and operating licenses (COLs) for plants
and approving reactor designs in advance.
The NRC says it expects to receive applica-
tions for 12 new reactors at seven sites within
the next few years and 15 more applications
over the longer term. Four consortia have al-
ready applied for early site permits, using a
separate process in which the NRC reviews
and approves the suitability of a site before its
prospective developers apply for a COL.
In all, developers are currently proposing
building 47 new reactors in the U.S. They
would be part of 33 projects totaling more
than 60,000 MW and would be valued at
more than $106 billion. Given the length of
the site permitting and COL processes, its
conceivable that 19 of the proposed reactors
could break ground in 2010, but thats a very
optimistic estimate. Until the timetables are
firmed up and financing issues are resolved,
the U.S. nuclear power industry will have to
be satisfied with incremental upgrades of re-
actor capacity. At present, 12 projects of that
type totaling $600 million are in the works.
Renewables: Finally
going mainstream
Citing the need to displace the use of fos-
sil fuels to reduce CO
2
emissions and help
lessen Americas dependence on imports,
24 states and the District of Columbia have
enacted renewable portfolio standards (RPS)
that require their regulated electric utilities
to get an increasing share of their supplies
from wind farms, solar cells, and biomass
and geothermal plants. The standards cur-
rently in place call for development of more
than 55,000 MW of renewable capacity by
2020. Nine other states have introduced RPS
bills, and several of the 24 states that have
imposed standards are considering moving
up the deadline to meet them.
In December 2007, the U.S. Congress
extended the federal production tax credit
(PTC) for renewable energy plants by one
year, through December 31, 2008. That was
the second time Congress approved extension
of the PTC just before it expired. From 1999
until 2004, the credit was allowed to expire
on three separate occasions, and each time
it put a damper on renewable energy devel-
opment. The PTC provides a 1.9 cents/kWh
tax credit for all electricity generated by a
renewable-fuel plant over its first 10 years of
operationif the plant qualified by entering
commercial service before the deadline.
With the RPS and PTC incentives in place,
investment in renewable energy projects is
expected to surpass that in gas-fired projects
for the third year in a row. More than 5,000
MW of renewables-fueled plants valued at
$7.7 billion broke ground in 2006. Thats a
67% increase over the prior year. For com-
parison, investment in new gas-fueled plants
covering both years totaled $5.9 billion.
More than 5,200 MW of renewable-fu-
eled units broke ground last year by Septem-
ber, and another 2,800 MW were scheduled
to follow suit by years end. All told, 8,000
MW, representing more than $11.7 billion
in investments, were expected to begin con-
struction in 2007, while over 4,000 MW
were scheduled to go commercial by New
Years Eve.
Table 3. U.S. power generation construction kickoff summary by primary fuel type (20002008). Source: Industrial Info Resources
Table 4. Total installed cost of generation by construction kickoff year (in 2006 dollars) by fuel
type, in millions of dollars. Source: Industrial Info Resources
Nuclear
Natural gas
d
Solar
Total
Fuel oil
c
Geothermal
Biomass
b
Coal
Wind
Hydro, tidal
Notes: a. Based on construction kickoff dates, not operational dates. b. Biomass includes biodiesel, wood, municipal waste, digestor gas, and landll gas.
c. Fuel oil includes petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. d. Natural gas includes waste heat projects.
a
0 0
2008 2006 2003 2004 2005 2007 2002 2001 2000
Primary fuel
category Units
76
3
113
0
3
581
0
2
8
786
MW
241
510
1,203
0
44
66,614
0
5
410
69,025
Units
19
2
109
0
1
663
0
0
23
817
MW
42
611
573
0
8
74,794
0
0
1,282
77,309
Units
14
15
87
0
237
0
0
8
361
MW
112
544
309
0
25,113
0
0
277
26,356
Units
27
2
61
0
5
144
0
0
26
265
MW
84
1,208
220
0
140
12,485
0
0
1,567
15,704
Units
26
4
55
0
4
114
0
1
20
224
MW
176
1,314
611
0
6
6,170
0
1
843
9,121
Units
46
12
35
9
6
83
0
0
30
221
MW
152
4,195
564
132
73
5,811
0
0
2,698
13,624
Units
74
11
15
3
8
66
0
2
48
227
MW
112
5,377
47
34
121
6,482
0
64
5,205
17,442
Units
41
10
13
6
12
124
0
5
79
290
0
MW
637
4,637
324
50
67
10,249
123
7,194
23,281
Units
62
69
19
39
46
285
0
9
203
732
MW
1,208
21,981
820
1,098
1,026
27,073
0
983
21,088
75,277
Primary fuel 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fuel oil
b
$602 $286 $155 $110 $305 $282 $24 $162 $410
Geothermal
$0
$0
$0 $0 $0 $329 $85 $125 $2,745
Hydro, tidal
$87 $16 $0 $280 $11 $146 $241 $134 $2,052
Natural gas
c
$33,307 $37,397 $12,557 $6,242 $3,085 $2,905 $3,241 $5,125 $13,537
Wind
$615 $1,922 $415 $2,351 $1,265 $4,047 $7,807 $10,791 $31,632
Total $35,473 $40,397 $13,891 $10,516 $6,421 $12,895 $18,091 $22,784 $86,521
Biomass
a
$241 $42 $112 $84 $176 $152 $112 $637 $1,208
Coal
$611 $733 $653 $1,450 $1,577 $5,033 $6,452 $5,564 $32,971
Notes: a. Biomass includes biodiesel, wood, municipal waste, digestor gas, and landll gas. b. Fuel oil includes
petroleum coke and tire-derived fuel. c. Natural gas includes waste heat projects.
POWER
|
January 2008 44
2008 INDUSTRY FORECAST
Dwarfing those annual totals are the more
than 82,000 MW of renewable energy proj-
ects being developed that have construction
kickoffs between 2008 and 2012. Signifi-
cantly, 87% of the planned capacity will be
wind power, a generation niche in which the
U.S. has long been far behind Europe.
Prospects for U.S. wind power have be-
come brighter for two reasons: renewal of
the PTC and the development of larger and
more-efficient wind turbines. Thanks to the
federal subsidy, wind farms at sites with fa-
vorable characteristics can now compete on
price with fossil-fueled plants. Noticing that,
investors pushed spending on wind power
projects in 2007 to record levels.
Last year in the U.S., new wind farms to-
taling more than 4,000 MW were expected to
come on-line. By September, 33 projects rep-
resenting 3,635 MW had done so. Another 41
farms in 20 states, totaling 3,600 MW, were
under construction; another 1,600 MW were
in advanced planning for start-up this year.
Even if some are delayed, bringing the total
for 2007 and 2008 below the expected 8,800
MW, new wind capacity still will represent a
significant increase over the 4,873 MW total
for 2005 and 2006.
Aside from the need for new or upgraded
transmission to link remote wind capacity to
the grid, the rising costs and tighter supply of
wind turbines remain the technologys big-
gest obstacles. Neither situation is likely to
improve for some time. For example, most
of the turbines that will roll off the assembly
line this year have already been purchased.
The worldwide equipment shortage has
spurred most of the leading wind turbine
manufacturers to boost supplies destined for
use in the U.S., where demand is set to peak:
Since 2001, Spains Gamesa has built
two state-of-the-art turbine factories in
Pennsylvania.
In 2005, homegrown Clipper Windpower
expanded the annual capacity of its factory
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, from five turbines
to 150.
Last year, Siemens Power Generations
new plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, shipped
its first wind turbine blade; Acciona Wind-
power opened a new factory in the same
state; Suzlon Rotor Corp. inaugurated
a wind blade nose cone manufacturing
plant in Pipestone, Minn.; and Molded
Fiberglass Companies broke ground on a
factory in Aberdeen, South Dakota, that
will build blades for 1.5-MW turbines de-
signed and assembled by GE Energy.
This year, Vestas Wind plans to open a
turbine blade factory in Windsor, Colo.
Meanwhile, in Newton, Iowa (where the
legendary Maytag washer/dryer factory
is scheduled to close by years end), TPI
Composites will begin manufacturing
blades for GEs 1.5-MW machines.
Further out, TECO-Westinghouse and
Composite Technology Corp. have agreed
to build a plant in Round Rock, Texas, to
make turbines for the latters subsidiary,
DeWind Inc. Separately, Hendricks In-
dustries plans to open a big, $34 million
wind turbine tower manufacturing plant in
Keokuk, Iowa, creating 350 jobs.
The top three general contractors, which
together are building more than 80% of the
wind farms under construction, are M.A.
Mortenson, D.H. Blattner & Sons, and RES
American Construction.
Britt Burt is VP of Power Industry Re-
search and Shane Mullins is VP of Prod-
uct Development for the electric power
industry at Industrial Info Resources. The
company provides comprehensive mar-
ket intelligence about industrial process-
ing, heavy manufacturing, and electric
power generation. For more information
on IIRs products, call 800-762-3361 or
visit www.industrialinfo.com.
www.terrapinn.com/2008/powerza Tel: +27 (0)11 516 4026
10 Years of established business success
Annual gathering for over 1000 participants across the African power sector
Part of the global series of power events: Asia, Australia and New Zealand
Co-locating 6 power sectors under one roof: Power Generation World;
Transmission & Distribution World; Renewable Energy World; Energy
Efficiency World; On-site Power World and Billing and Metering World Africa
We have limited sponsorship and exhibition opportunities left. Reserve
your stand by contacting Brian Mallory on Tel: +27 (0)11 516 4079 or
email: brian.mallory@terrapinn.co.za.
In celebration of the 10th Annual Africa Power &
Electricity Congress, Terrapinn is proud to
introduce The Africa Energy Awards. For more
on how you can become involved in the awards,
go to www.terrapinn.com/2008/awardsza
Powering the African continent
15 16 April 2008, Sandton Convention
Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa
Platinum sponsor
Gold sponsors
India country partner & gold sponsors
Bronze sponsors
Breakfast sponsor Cocktail sponsor Luncheon sponsor
Official host utility Endorsed by Organised by
T
e
r
r
a
p
in
n
1
7
1
0
/
P
o
w
e
r
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 46
WATER MANAGEMENT
Costlier, scarcer supplies dictate
making thermal plants less thirsty
The Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. thermoelectric gen-
erating capacity will grow from 709 GW in 2005 to 862 GW in 2030 to
help meet annual demand increases of 2%. The makeup and cooling water
needed by plants generating that increased capacity certainly wont be
available from withdrawal sources, so plant developers and owners will
have to apply water-stingy technologies plantwide. As is usually the case,
conservation saves money as well as the environment. Heres a thumbnail
economic analysis of some solutions to the water problem.
By Dr. John R. Wolfe, PE, Limno-Tech Inc.
W
hen the wells dry, we know the
worth of water, wrote Benjamin
Franklin in Poor Richards Alma-
nac (1746). Power plant owners are becom-
ing very familiar with that economic lesson.
The electric power industry requires reli-
able supplies of water in large quantities for
cooling andto a lesser extentfor flue gas
desulfurization and ash handling. Water use
remains a contentious issue for the U.S. in-
dustry, whose plants account for 40% of fresh-
water withdrawals nationwide but only 3% of
freshwater consumption, according to a 2004
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report.
As Americas population and electricity use
continue to grow, power plants are increas-
ingly competing with farms, factories, busi-
nesses, and households for limited supplies of
water. Because the growth of fresh water sup-
plies is limited, growth in electricity demand
can be met only by developing technologies
that reduce the volume of fresh water required
per kilowatt-hour of power generated.
Power generators have a vested interest
in conserving water to make local and re-
gional supplies last longer. Doing so helps
guarantee not only future plant operations
but also a growing economy with greater
electricity demand.
In a 2006 report, the National Energy
Technology Laboratory (NETL) projected
that the lions share of the new capacity in-
stalled between 2005 and 2030 will be in arid
regions, including southeast, southwest, and
western states. Those are the areas where
adopting new water-conserving technologies
will likely be most cost-effective for plant
operators, due to the shrinking availability
and the rising cost of water there (Figure 1).
The purpose of this article is not to review
all the available conservation technologies but
rather to introduce their potential cost savings
to power developers. Another aim is to chal-
lenge the original equipment manufacturing
community to produce engineered products
that minimize water consumption and/or use.
Though existing plants can benefit from
retrofitting new technologies, the greatest
potential cost savings lies in integrating new
technologies into new plant designs. The lon-
ger amortization period of investment in new
plants makes new technologies more attrac-
tive for those plants.
Open- vs. closed-loop cooling
Not all water withdrawals result in consump-
tive use, and this distinction is especially im-
portant for the electric power industry. Many
older plants use once-through cooling, which
heats large volumes of water and then returns
that water, with little volume loss, to a river,
a lake, or an ocean.
Projected thermoelectric cooling constraint indices in 2025
Highly constrained
Moderatly constrained
No existing generation, or constraints unlikely
1. Supply vs. demand. The Thermoelectric Cooling Constraint Index is based on the
Water Supply Sustainability Index (WSSI), which takes into account the amount of available
renewable water and sustainable groundwater use, limits on freshwater withdrawals needed
to protect endangered species, an areas susceptibility to drought, and its expected growth in
water use and power production. An area is considered highly constrained if its WSSI is 3 or
greater and moderately constrained if its WSSI is between 2 and 3. Source: NETL, 2006
January 2008
|
POWER 47
WATER MANAGEMENT
As a result of Clean Water Act Section
316(b) provisions and public pressures, most
jurisdictions now discourage or prohibit
construction of new once-through cooling
systems. A 2002 EPRI report found that a
typical system at a plant burning a fossil fuel,
biomass, or waste requires withdrawals of
20,000 to 50,000 gallons/MWh, although it
only consumes (loses) 300 gal/MWh. How-
ever, the large volume of water withdrawn by
a once-through system can entrain and im-
pinge aquatic organisms, and the discharge
of heat to surface waters may have adverse
ecological effects. Once-through systems
may be retrofitted with helper towers or use
groundwater to dilute discharge and mitigate
temperature problems.
For new installations, closed-loop (recir-
culating) cooling systems are increasingly
required. Because recirculating systems cool
by evaporation from towers or cooling ponds,
they consume more water than once-through
systems, but they withdraw a lot less. The
actual rates of water withdrawal and con-
sumption depend on the plants generation
technology and environmental conditions.
But for a typical plant, as described in the
previous paragraph, a closed-loop system
would require withdrawals of just 500 to 600
gal/MWh and lose 480 gal/MWh to evapora-
tion, according to the 2002 EPRI report.
The changing mix of once-through and
recirculating cooling systemsas well as
water-conserving improvements to them
enabled the electric power industry to re-
duce its water withdrawals per unit of power
generated by a factor of three over a 50-year
period: from 63,000 gal/MWh in 1950 to
21,000 gal/MWh in 2000 (Table 1). Over the
same period, power generation increased by
a factor of 15.
Clean water: No longer
abundant or free
The siting of new plants or the expansion of
existing ones is dictated by electricity de-
mand forecasts. The choice of cooling tech-
nology and other decisions affecting water
use are part of an overall siting and plant
design process, although location and fuel
availability are usually more powerful driv-
ers than water availability. Next on the list
of desirable features is a site that has suffi-
cient transmission access and transportation
facilities to supply fuel at an attractive price.
These selection factors should be familiar to
anyone following the number of large coal
projects under development in arid regions of
the western U.S.
Recent projects tend to assume that water
is available at some price. One developer in
the Southwest noted that, The cost of wa-
ter is not an important factor for us, except
when water is unavailable at any price. An-
other, in the Southeast, said, Water is more
and more critical, more in terms of availabil-
ity than cost. A third developer, who spe-
cializes in expanding existing plants rather
than building new ones, noted that The
cost of water is going up, and water from
watersheds is overappropriated. There is a
tendency to expand at existing sites where
water is available.
The cost of acquiring water depends on its
local abundance or scarcity, water rights, and
use rules. Where water is abundant and local
regulations permit, the cost of acquiring wa-
ter for a new plant may be limited to investing
in wells or surface water intakes. Preventing
fish entrainment and limiting impingement
mortality may be costly when surface water
is used. Water rights laws govern allocation
in the West, making water costly and possi-
bly unavailable during droughts. The cost of
acquiring water varies widely, from as low as
50 cents/1,000 gallons (kgal), where water is
abundant and regulations permit, to as much
as $3/kgal where water is very scarce and
rights must be acquired from existing owners
(Table 2).
The cost of delivering water depends on
distance and terrain but varies over a nar-
rower range than acquisition cost. Research
shows this component of water cost can
be as little as 13 cents/kgal or as much as
$1.20/kgal.
The cost to treat and dispose of cooling
water varies much more widely, depending
on the characteristics of the raw water. Sur-
face water may be suitable for cooling with
minimal treatment or may require removal
of suspended solids. Because effluent from
wastewater treatment plants is typically treat-
ed to make it suitable for discharge, it is usu-
ally of fairly high quality. However, nutrients
and bacteria may restrict wastewaters use
for cooling unless the power plant treats it
further (see POWER, May 2006, Recycling,
reuse define future plant designs).
Fresh groundwater has higher concentra-
tions of dissolved solids that can become
scale unless they are removed by pretreat-
ment in a closed-loop cooling system. Saline
water from the ocean or coastal areas also
requires treatment and/or the use of special
corrosion-resistant materials to make it suit-
able for plant use. Degraded waters from
coal and oil production may be available,
but they have much greater pretreatment re-
quirements. For example, low pH is an issue
for water pumped from spent coal mines,
and the effluent of oil and gas well opera-
tions can have high levels of salts, silica,
and hardness. And because recirculating
cooling water also concentrates dissolved
constituents in cooling tower blowdown,
it may need to be post-treated if it is dis-
charged to surface waters.
EPRIs Comparison of Alternate Cool-
ing Technologies for U.S. Power Plants
(2004) determined that the cost of pre- and
post-treating available water can range from
as low as 22 cents/kgal (where treatment re-
quirements are minimal) to as much as $4.28/
kgal (if the water left over from oil and gas
exploration is used).
As Table 2 shows, the sum of the medium
estimates of component costs is $2.82/kgal.
It is unlikely that a water source would be
used if the costs of acquiring, delivering,
and treating/disposing of it were all at the
high or low end of their ranges; a reasonable
range for the overall cost of water is $1/kgal
to $4/kgal.
Water withdrawals (billions of gallons)
Power generated (billions of MWh)
Water withdrawal efficiency (gal/MWh)
1950
14,500
0.23
63,000
1960
36,500
0.61
60,000
1970
62,100
1.28
49,000
1980
77,000
2
39,000
1990
71,000
2.68
27,000
2000
71,000
3.45
21,000
Table 1. Water use efficiency. These were the historical generation and water with-
drawal and efficiency values for closed-loop cooling systems serving U.S. coal-, biomass-, and
waste-fired power plants. Sources: USGS and EIA Activity Low Medium High
Acquisition $0.50 $1.25 $3.00
Delivery $0.13 $0.57 $1.20
Treatment/disposal $0.22 $1.00 $4.28
Totals $0.85 $2.82 $8.48
Table 2. Water costs. Here are recent
representative costs of acquiring, transport-
ing, and treating/disposing of 1,000 gallons
of water. A reasonable range for the overall
cost of water is $1/kgal to $4/kgal. Source:
EPRI, 2004
Water is more and more critical, more in
terms of availability than cost.
POWER
|
January 2008 48
WATER MANAGEMENT
This wide range of water costs has im-
portant implications for the sustainability of
supplies. Because costs vary widely from one
location to another, so does the attractiveness
of water conservation technologies across lo-
cations and regions. The development of new
technologies increases the options for plant
developers and decision-makers, enabling
them to reduce water-related costs and plant
profitability.
Better cooling options can even make it
easier to site a plant near its market and fuel
supplies, potentially boosting profits. Ideally,
water availability and cost should not be sec-
ond-tier considerations during the planning
of a power project; they should be as impor-
tant as electricity demand and fuel availabil-
ity. When more technological optionsplus
more-reliable information about water sup-
plies and costs and the economic benefits of
new technologiesare available, planners
can do a better job of planning and siting new
capacity to use water supplies wisely.
Recycling water
As mentioned earlier, closed-loop cooling
systems require less fresh water withdraw-
als than once-through systems, but they
consume more water due to evaporation. In
addition, water may be consumed by flue
gas scrubbing and be lost to cooling tower
blowdown. The development of new tech-
nologies could reduce losses from each of
these processes, as could the reuse of gray
water for cooling.
The 480 gal/MWh loss to evaporation
from a typical coal-fired power plant rep-
resents the greatest opportunity for sav-
ings. Evaporative losses can be reduced if
water vapor can be condensed and returned
to the cooling system. Small-scale tests of
one technology, which uses crosscurrents
of ambient air for condensation, show po-
tential for capturing 12% to 30% of evapo-
rative losses if engineered to full scale. A
2006 paper by Ken Mortenson argued that
this technology could cut losses by 60 to
140 gal/MWh, with the high end applying
to hotter climates.
This reduction in water losses can be trans-
lated into dollar savings at the plant level by
assuming a cost of water and a plant capacity.
Using the representative midrange total water
cost of $2.82/kgal developed earlier, the sav-
ings would range from $0.17 to $0.39/MWh.
For a 350-MW baseload plant operating
year-round, savings from reducing evapora-
tion from its cooling towers would amount
to between $500,000 and $1,200,000, with a
midrange value of $870,000. Increasing the
towers cycles of concentration and reducing
blowdown losses (see below) might save the
same plant another $300,000 to $1,200,000
annually.
Beware of blowdown
As water evaporates from a cooling tower,
the concentrations of dissolved and suspend-
ed solids in the remaining water increase. To
minimize scaling, fouling, and corrosion of
the cooling system, these concentrations are
reduced by blowdown. Blowdown is the term
for the discharge of water from the cooling
system and its replacement by fresh makeup
water taken from a river, lake, or well. The
term cycles of concentration describes the
proportion by which evaporation increases
constituent concentrations (assuming the
typical evaporation rate of 480 gal/MWh).
For example, at two cycles of concentration,
evaporation doubles constituent concentra-
tions, relative to intake water.
The development of cooling system mate-
rials that are resistant to scaling, corrosion,
and fouling may make it possible to operate
at higher solids concentrations, significantly
reducing blowdown losses. A study by EPRI
and the California Energy Commission
found that doubling cycles of concentration
from 4 to 8, which exceeds the usual allow-
able range, could reduce blowdown by about
100 gal/MWh (Figure 2). (See the POWER
articles, Southern California Public Power
Authoritys Magnolia Power Project in
September 2005 and High Desert Power
Plant in September 2003, for examples of
plants running high cycles-of-concentration
cooling towers with zero liquid discharge
systems.)
As we did for reductions in evaporative
losses, we can translate reductions in blow-
down water losses into dollar savings at the
plant level by assuming a cost of water and
a plant capacity. Using $1 to $4/kgal for the
total water cost range, savings from reducing
blowdown losses would come in at 10 to 40
cents/MWh. As mentioned earlier, for a 350-
MW baseload plant operating year-round,
the potential savings would be $300,000
to $1,200,000, with a midrange value of
$860,000.
Scrubbing water
The ratcheting down of emission levels for
sulfur dioxide has sparked a mini-boom in
the market for flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
systems, or scrubbers. NETL estimates that
the size of the U.S. FGD market is expected
to increase by more than 100,000 MW over
the next 10 years. Although water require-
ments for scrubbing are a fraction of those
needed for cooling purposes, FGD units re-
quire a significant amount of water to pro-
duce and handle the various process streams
(limestone slurry, scrubber sludge, and the
like). NETLs 2005 Power Plant Water
Usage and Loss Study found that makeup
water requirements for the FGD island at a
550-MW (nominal) subcritical coal-fired
power plant are about 570 gallons/minute
(gpm), vs. about 9,500 gpm for cooling wa-
ter makeup.
Flue gas scrubbing can be accomplished
with either dry or wet systems. Wet scrub-
bers entrain the flue gas in a water spray,
capturing sulfur dioxide and other pollutants,
which are then removed by creating an alka-
line slurry. Dry scrubbing injects the alkaline
particles directly into the flue gas stream, ob-
viating the need for water, but the more lim-
ited contact between reactants in the absence
of water results in lower pollutant removal
efficiencies.
230
162
66
W
a
t
e
r
u
s
e
(
g
a
l
/
M
W
h
)
Cycles of concentration
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. Blowdown blowup. Typical water losses from cooling towers at various cycles of
concentration. Source: EPRI, 2007
January 2008
|
POWER 49
WATER MANAGEMENT
New technologies that reduce or recover
evaporative losses from scrubbing flue gas,
or increase the removal efficiency of dry
scrubbing, could reduce water use and as-
sociated costs. Another way to quantify the
water requirements for a typical wet scrub-
ber is to determine the amount of water that a
plant could save by shifting from wet to dry
scrubbing, or by capturing all of the evapora-
tion produced by wet scrubbing. NETL came
up with a figure of 25 gal/MWh. Again us-
ing $1 to $4/kgal as the range of total water
costs, the savings would amount to 2.5 to 10
cents/MWh. For our 350-MW baseload plant
operating year-round, the potential annual
savings from shifting from wet to dry scrub-
bing ranges from $75,000 to $300,000, with
a midrange value of $220,000.
If all three loss processes (evaporation
from cooling towers, blowdown, and flue gas
scrubbing) could be simultaneously reduced
at an existing 350-MW coal-fired plant, the
total annual cost savings would be $875,000
to $2,700,000 (depending on climate and
the cost of water), with a midrange total of
$1,950,000. Figure 3 shows the potential
savings for each process, assuming an in-
termediate cost of $2.82/kgal for total water
use. Most of the savings are from reducing
blowdown and evaporative losses, with the
elimination of losses from wet scrubbing a
minor contributor.
Other sources of water
Where clean water is unavailable at a reason-
able cost, lower-quality nontraditional water
supplies may be good substitutes, as long
as depreciation of cooling systems can be
minimized by limited pretreatment of intake
waters. Potential sources of degraded water
include treated urban wastewater, storm wa-
ter, mine drainage, quarry dewatering, and
water produced by oil and gas extraction (see
POWER, March 2007, Reclaimed cooling
waters impact on surface condensers and
heat exchangers).
Wastewater from public treatment works
can be very affordable, at the low end of the
treatment/disposal costs shown in Table 2,
because such water has already been treated.
This water source will also grow sustainably,
because growing populations that require
more electricity also generate growing waste-
water flows. New sewage flows, just from
domestic water use alone, can be expected at
a rate exceeding 40 gal/day per capita. About
16 gal/day per capita are sufficient for new
power generation, assuming current average
rates of 33 kWh per day of electricity demand
per capita and water consumption for power
generation of 480 gal/MWh.
Where population growth is insufficient
for increasing wastewater flows, advances
in technologies that enable the use of de-
graded waters may also present substantial
opportunities for cost savings. As Figure
4 shows, the cost of treatment required to
safely use degraded waters can exceed $4/
kgal for produced waters and agricultural
return waters, making it the largest compo-
nent of the cost of water. At such a high cost,
use of these degraded waters is not often
competitive. However, advances in the abil-
ity to use degraded waters without extensive
pretreatmentsuch as spray-enhanced dry
coolingcould reduce the overall cost of
cooling water, making degraded water com-
petitive with more traditional groundwater
and surface water sources.
To roughly estimate the potential saving
from advances in the use of degraded waters,
we can assume a reasonable decrease in the
cost of pretreatment, based on the range of
current costs. Water resulting from oil and
gas extraction, and agricultural return wa-
ters, cost $4/kgal or more to treatabout
four times what it costs to treat fresh water.
It is unlikely that treatment technologies
and/or the development of materials compat-
ible with degraded waters will eliminate the
gap. It is possible, however, that the differ-
ence in treatment costs could be significantly
reduced, by as much as 25 to 75 cents/kgal.
For our 350-MW baseload plant that requires
480 gal/MWh, the savings would amount to
$370,000 to $1,100,000, with a midrange
value of $740,000.
Other cooling options
Dry cooling eliminates a thermal power
plants dependence on cooling water. The
plants steam is condensed inside finned
tubes by blowing air across their exterior
surfaces. The challenges of dry cooling in-
clude much higher capital and installation
costs, a high efficiency penalty, increased
exhaust gas emissions, and load limitations
on hot days.
Currently, dry cooling is used, or viewed
as an option of last resort, where water is
very costly or limited in availability. There
are now several plants in operation or under
construction that use dry cooling; most are
gas-fired, combined-cycle units. As a result,
in the U.S. there is only limited experience
with dry cooling of baseload-scale plants.
Advanced technologies for dry cooling
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
s
t
(
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
$
)
Typical After potential
reductions
Blowdown Evaporative Scrubbing
3. Saving water, and dollars. Po-
tential savings from reducing three process
water losses at a 350-MW coal-fired power
plant, assuming a total water cost of $2.82/
kgal. Source: EPRI, 2007
4. The cost of using degraded water. Representative water treatment costs per
1,000 gallons from various sources. Source: EPRI, 2004
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
$
/
k
g
a
l
Recycled
wastewater
treatment plant
efuent (coastal)
Fresh water
(desert)
Fresh water
(valley)
Produced water
(valley)
Agricultural
return water
(desert)
POWER
|
January 2008 50
WATER MANAGEMENT
larger plants would be of great interest to
power project developers if the technologies
would reduce the efficiency and capital-cost
penalties.
One developer framed the problem suc-
cinctly as follows: We wouldnt go to dry
cooling unless we really had to, because of
enormous capital and operating costs, and
lower plant efficiency. Efficient air cool-
ing options must be expanded and made less
costly for future plants.
Hybrid cooling represents a middle
ground that may be more appealing and
feasible for baseload plants. Hybrid cooling
systems use a combination of both wet and
dry cooling technologies to conserve wa-
ter. Although they decrease the hot weather
penalty, they reduce but dont completely
eliminate the need for cooling water. Hy-
brid systems can limit annual water use to
2% to 5% of what wet recirculating cool-
ing systems use, although 20% to 80% is a
more typical range. Generation efficiency
and capacity generally increase with greater
water use.
It is only where the costs of water are
highest that air cooling is cost-competitive
with water cooling (Figure 5). For example,
if our 350-MW reference plant were in El
Paso, Texas, dry cooling would be cost-com-
petitive only when the cost of water exceeds
about $3/kgal. Above that level, dry cooling
would be preferred because its cost is unaf-
fected by the cost of water.
The magnitude of potential savings for
generators in warmer climates approaches
20% of cooling costs. Look at the cost curves
of Figure 5 for plants in El Paso, Texas, and
Portland, Ore. (see POWER, September
2007, Port Westward Generating Plant).
The difference is due entirely to El Pasos
hot weather penalty, which is on the order of
$1.5 million/year in cooling costs, according
to a 2004 EPRI report. The goal of ongoing
research into improved air-cooled and/or
hybrid technologies is to reduce costs for a
plant of this capacity by a significant share. A
reduction of 33% to 66% in the hot weather
penalty would produce annual savings of
$500,000 to $1,000,000.
Running the numbers
Potential cost savings have been estimated
above for several innovative applied technol-
ogies. To provide a consistent point of refer-
ence, Table 3 can be used to roughly estimate
the potential annual cost savings available to
a typical 350-MW coal-burning plant from
capturing evaporation, reducing blowdown,
using degraded waters, and adopting dry or
hybrid cooling.
Any of the estimated savings shown in
the table would be sizable enough to sig-
nificantly increase a power plants profit-
ability. For example, the production costs of
a 350-MW baseload coal-burning plant run
about $100 to $125 million annually, based
on a levelized cost ranging from $33 to $41/
MWh. With the exception of dry scrubbing,
each technology listed in Table 3 has the
potential to reduce annual production costs
by about 1%, increasing profitability by the
same percentage.
Because profit rates for generating plants
currently average about 7% to 8% of costs,
implementing these water-conservation tech-
nologies, alone or in combination, could
raise profit rates by 1 to 3 percentage points,
from 7% to 8% to an improved 8% to 11%.
Measured in millions of dollars, thats a sub-
stantial gain.
This article was based on the Limno-
Tech report, Program on Technology
Innovation: An Energy/Water Sustain-
ability Research Program for the Electric
Power Industry. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2007.
1015371.Dr. John R. Wolfe, PE (jwolfe
@limno.com), was the principal investigator
for Limno-Tech Inc. Paul L. Freedman, PE,
and M. Catherine Whiting were coauthors
of the report.
5. Breakeven points. Comparing the
costs of wet and dry cooling for two hypo-
thetical 350-MW plantsone in Portland,
Ore., and the other in El Paso, Texas. Source:
EPRI, 2004
C
o
o
l
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
(
$
M
/
y
r
)
8
6.5
Wet (all plants)
Dry
(El Paso)
Dry
(Portland, OR)
Cost of water ($/kgal)
1 2 3 4
Conservation technology
Capture evaporation
Reduce blowdown
Dry scrubbing
Use of degraded waters
Dry or hybrid cooling
Low
$500,000
$300,000
$75,000
$370,000
$500,000
Medium
$870,000
$860,000
$220,000
$740,000
$750,000
High
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$300,000
$1,100,000
$1,000,000
Table 3. Cost savings. These are the estimated annual benefits for a typical 350-MW
coal-burning plant from using different water use reduction technologies. Source: EPRI, 2007
Water usage research
For more information about the subject of
power plant water usage, consult the fol-
lowing sources, which informed the writ-
ing of this article:
California Energy Commission. 2003.
U.S. Per Capita Energy Use by State in
2003. www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/
us_percapita_electricity_2003.html.
DeFillippo, M. 2003. Use of Degraded
Water Sources as Cooling Water in
Power Plants. EPRI and California En-
ergy Commission.
Energy Information Administration.
2004. Annual Energy Review 2003.
EPRI. 2002. Water and Sustainability
(Volume 1): Research Plan.
EPRI. 2004. Comparison of Alternate
Cooling Technologies for U.S. Power
Plants: Economic, Environmental, and
Other Tradeoffs.
EPRI. 2007. Program on Technology
Innovation: An Energy/Water Sus-
tainability Research Program for the
Electric Power Industry. Prepared by
Limno-Tech Inc.
Metcalf & Eddy Inc. 1991. Wastewater
Engineering, Disposal and Reuse, 3rd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mortenson, Ken. 2006. Use of Air2Air
to Recover Fresh Water in Evaporative
Cooling at Coal-Based Thermoelectric
Power Plants. Symposium on Western
Fuels. Denver, Colo.
National Energy Technology Labora-
tory. 2005. Power Plant Water Usage
and Loss Study.
National Energy Technology Labora-
tory. 2006. Estimating Freshwater
Needs to Meet Future Thermoelectric
Generation Requirements. DOE/NETL
2006/1235.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Estimat-
ed Use of Water in the United States
in 2000. USGS Circular 1268. http://
pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268.
January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 51
STEAM TURBINES
Eliminating oil whipinduced
vibration after a steam turbine
retrofit
Nobody expected driveline vibration to occur after a flawless retrofit of a 200-
MW steam turbine. But when it did, Mitsubishi Power Systems and Exelon
vibration specialists identified the symptoms and rapidly narrowed the
list of possible causes. Confounding factors made the root cause difficult
to identify, but the experts pinpointed the problem, made necessary hard-
ware modifications, and placed the turbine back in service in a week.
By Craig C. Jennings, Exelon Power
E
xtending the economic operating life of
aging steam plants remains a priority at
many utilities, given the challenge of
obtaining permits for new generation and the
lower cost of life-extension projects. More
than half of U.S. coal-fired plants are over 30
years of age, and 10% are more than 50 years
old. These veterans still have a lot of fight
left in them, given an overhaul or two. But
such work can uncover unexpected ailments,
as operators at the aging Cromby Generating
Station (Figure 1) learned.
Exelons Cromby Generating Station, lo-
cated in Phoenixville, Penn., consists of two
units: Unit 1 is a coal-fired 144-MW plant;
Unit 2 is a 202-MW unit that burns gas or No.
6 fuel oil, depending on market conditions.
Unit 1 has accumulated more than 330,000
fired hours since it began commercial service
in 1954. Unit 2, commissioned in 1955, re-
mains a favorite dispatch unit in the Exelon
fleet and dispels the myth that its the miles
and not the age that determine when a unit
should be retired.
Rotor transplant
Unit 2, the focus of this case study, is a
conventional steam plant with a three-cas-
ing, single-driveline steam turbine (one HP,
one IPsingle-flow LP [IP-SFLP], and one
double-flow LP [DFLP]) originally built by
Westinghouse (Figure 2). Mitsubishi Power
Systems Inc. (MPS) was awarded a contract
to retrofit and upgrade the steam turbine to
extend its service life. Generating 4% more
power with the more-efficient turbine was a
welcome side benefit of the project.
Figure 2 also illustrates the units rotor
bearing arrangement. In this configuration,
bearing No. 4, between the IP-SFLP and
the DFLP (bearing No. 5), is shared by the
two cylinders. Figure 3 compares cross sec-
tions of the old and replacement HP steam
turbines.
The retrofit project replaced the HP rotor
and diaphragms but reused the existing out-
er casing. The original Curtis control stages
were replaced with a single, higher-effi-
ciency Rateau stage, and the reaction blades
were redesigned with the latest 3-D design
tools. The HP turbines inner casing, blade,
and dummy rings were replaced; the HP ro-
tor bearings were rebabbitted; and thermo-
1. Fifty years and counting. Exelons Cromby Station has been in commercial service
for more than 50 years. Upgrades to Unit 2s steam turbine should extend the plants life for a
couple more decades, at least. Courtesy: Exelon Corp.
Bearing
No. 1
High pressure
Intermediate pressure
single-ow low pressure
Double-ow
low pressure
Generator
2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Long driveline. The rotor arrangement of Unit 2 at Cromby Generating Station.
Source: MPS
POWER
|
January 2008 52
STEAM TURBINES
couples for bearing metal temperature were
installed. Farther down the driveline, one
row of LP L-0 blades and three rows of LP
L-1 blades were replaced. The addition of
orthogonal vibration measurement instru-
mentation completed the scope of work.
Plant engineers showed excellent foresight
in adding this new vibration instrumenta-
tionas youll appreciate in a moment.
The upgrades were completed without in-
cident, and the unit was started on Novem-
ber 17, 2003, for testing. Loading of the unit
and overspeed tests were also performed
without any major problems. However, vi-
bration instability, or oil whirl vibration, in
the HP bearings at low-load operating con-
ditions was soon observed. In the follow-
ing days, several field balancing runs were
performed to reduce the vibration levels of
bearings 3, 4, and 5. On November 20, af-
ter sustaining low-load operation for several
minutes, a rather sudden synchronous vibra-
tion increase was recorded in bearing 2 (and
in bearing 1 to a lesser extent) that prompted
a trip of the unit.
During the coast-down, a sudden subsyn-
chronous vibration spike was recorded at ap-
proximately 3,500 rpm with a filtered 0.5X
value in excess of 15 mils (with direct read-
ings of almost 20 mils).
Bad vibes
The old HP turbine had had a history of
unstable behavior before the retrofit and
had experienced sporadic subsynchronous
vibration. However, pre-outage detailed vi-
bration data were not available for precise
analysis because the unit was not equipped
with the instrumentation package found on
late-model turbines.
The rotor bearing system stability of the
HP turbine with the original partial center
slot type bearings (Figure 4) had been ana-
lyzed before the outage and was found to be
satisfactory with the heavier new rotor. The
option of making dimensional changes in the
center slot to improve the stability margin
was dismissed because of the relatively el-
evated drain temperature of the HP bearings
(180F for an oil supply of 104F).
Vibration data collected on November
19 (before the trip) still showed sporadic
subsynchronous vibration, which now ap-
peared during the acceleration ramp-up at
approximately 2,840 rpm and disappeared
at approximately 3,490 rpm (Figure 5). This
sporadic behavior continued during several
subsequent operational tests when loading
the unit to baseload operation. The only com-
mon thread was the unpredictable timing of
the vibration.
The team determined that the high syn-
chronous vibration recorded on November
20 was caused by a severe rubbing condition
between the shaft and the bearings experi-
enced during a normal shutdown, causing
3. Fits like a glove. Mitsubishi Power
Systems engineered a new direct replace-
ment HP steam turbine to fit inside the cas-
ing of the old steam turbine. Shown are cross
sectional drawings of the original (top) and
new (bottom) HP steam turbines. Source:
MPS
4. Recycled bearings. The HP turbines lower-half bearings with a partial center slot were
analyzed as part of the retrofit turbine design and were found to be adequate for the new,
heavier rotor. All bearings were rebabbitted during the project. Courtesy: MPS
5. Unexpected spike. Subsynchronous vibration during a start-up with the new HP tur-
bine is shown inside the red circle. Source: MPS
January 2008
|
POWER 53
STEAM TURBINES
the unit to trip on high vibration. The internal
rubbing was quickly identified by a large and
rapid increase in the synchronous vibration
component with large changes in phase angle
(Figure 6). At the moment of the trip, the
subsynchronous component was negligible,
but it suddenly increased during the coast-
down that followed the trip (Figure 7). Over-
all (nonfiltered) vibration during coast-down
after the instability was triggered approached
20 mils (Figure 8).
Flexible shaft
The original steam turbine design included
bearing vibration measurement in only one
direction. The upgrades scope of work
added additional, orthogonal vibration mea-
suring capability on all bearings. This new
instrumentation also allowed operators to
gather shaft average centerline data, which
was extremely helpful in diagnosing the new
HP turbines vibration problems.
Figure 9 illustrates the average centerline
of bearing 2 from cold start-up conditions
(bottom of the plot) to the relatively hot
shutdown conditions (last point to the right).
The plot clearly indicates a shift of the rotor
centerline toward the right side of the bearing
during operation. Additionally, the rotors
stationary position was displaced, relative to
its pre-starting position, by almost 5 mils af-
ter stopping, in both vertical and horizontal
directions.
The only explanation for this behavior is
either actual movement of the shaft center to
the right side of the bearing (in the opposite
direction of the expected shaft locus) or rela-
tive movement of the sensor with respect to
the bearing center.
Tracking sensor movement relative to
the shaft. Bearing No. 2s vibration sensors
were installed in the pedestal cover at a rela-
tively long distance from the rotor surface.
Thermal expansioncaused movement of the
pedestal cover relative to the bearing resulted
in the misleading indication that the rotor po-
sition at rest, before starting, and after shut-
ting down had changed.
Investigators determined that the induced
movement of bearing 2s pedestal cover did
result in the erroneous conclusion that the ro-
tor position at rest was different at cold and
hot conditions and that this was not part of
the root cause of the vibration increase.
Factoring in the steam turbine valve
sequence. Steam is admitted to the HP tur-
bine through eight different nozzles located
in the periphery of the HP turbines first
stage. The nozzles are designed to gradu-
ally open during start-up to carefully con-
trol steam flow into the turbines governing
stage. Investigators found that the order in
which the eight nozzles are sequenced af-
6. Rubbed the wrong way. A large synchronous vibration excitation in the HP turbine
was induced by a rubbing condition. The polar plot shown is for bearing No. 2. Source: MPS
7. Stuttering stop. A sudden increase in subsynchronous vibration during coast-down
was also caused by rubbing. Source: MPS
8. Shake, rattle, and roll. Overall vibration reached 19.7 mils peak-to-peak during the
coast-down after the trip. Source: MPS
If a variable isnt measured, trend analysis
isnt possible.
POWER
|
January 2008 54
STEAM TURBINES
fects the bearing loading as the direction
of the reaction force on the rotor changes
(Figure 10).
Whenever nozzle valve 3 opens (at around
60 to 70 MW), a bearing load increase is ob-
served. Bearing loading is clearly reduced
after nozzle valve 4 opens at approximately
50% load (about 100 MW). The governor
valve sequence related to 25% and 50%
steam admission flow corresponds to the
lightest load condition of the rotor, and it
unloads bearings 1 and 2. A moment is also
introduced that affects loading conditions
on bearings 1 or 2, depending on the nozzle
valve sequence.
Measuring the uneven movement of
bearings 2 and 3 thrust pedestals during
thermal expansion. The horizontal thermal
expansion of the bearing pedestal between the
HP and the IP-SFLP turbines was measured
by installing dial gauges at the base of the
pedestal base plate. Measurements revealed
uneven movement of the pedestal referenced
to the shaft centerline.
Measurements of the horizontal movement
of the pedestal between HP and IP-SFLP tur-
bines revealed uneven thermal growth dis-
placement. This movement induced angular
deviation between the rotor and bearings 2
and 3. This deviation caused movement of
the rotor at bearing 2, away from the normal
shaft centerline position on the right side of
the bearing.
Pedestal movement readings at the gen-
erator and governor ends of the driveline
were significantly different (Figure 11). The
relative end-to-end change in pedestal posi-
tion was a maximum of +6 mils and a mini-
mum of 5 mils. This displacement caused
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
Left direction
Right direction
B
a
s
e
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
i
l
s
)
10 p.m. Midnight
Day 1 Time Day 2
10 p.m. Midnight
Day 1 Time Day 2
Base (generator side) Base (governor side) Governor side minus generator side
L
o
a
d
(
M
W
)
250
200
150
100
50
0
MW
10. Order matters. HP turbine bearing No. 2 loading was found to be a function of the
generator load and the sequencing order of the eight nozzle valves. Source: MPS
7.75
7.70
7.65
7.60
7.55
7.50
7.45
7.40
7.35
7.30
B
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
k
g
f
/
c
m
2
)
0 50 100 150 200 250
#5 valve opens,
and the vertical
downward
force increases.
#3 valve opens,
and the vertical
downward force
increases.
25% admission
#6 valve
open condition
50% admission
Generator output (MW)
9. Tracking shaft movement. Newly
installed instrumentation added the ability to
track the HP turbine shaft average centerline.
This chart shows the shaft movement inside
bearing No. 2. Source: MPS
Rotor at rest
11. Measuring movement. The horizontal thermal growth of the pedestal between the HP and IP-SFLP turbines was measured during a
typical turbine start-up, at full-load operation, and then at 25% load. Source: MPS
January 2008
|
POWER 55
STEAM TURBINES
the observed angular deviation of the bearing
with respect to the rotor centerline. The lower
chart in Figure 11 shows the loading condi-
tion of the unit during measurement of the
pedestals horizontal movement.
Inspired solution
The stability margin of the replacement rotor-
bearing system was analyzed throughout the
entire range of loading conditions. Particular
emphasis was placed at 25% load, where the
rotor bearing system has the lowest loading.
Bearing metal temperature data were also
collected during the turbine tests and revealed
additional clues to the root cause of turbine
vibration (Figure 12). The metal temperature
mirrors the changes in calculated bearing
pressure changes induced by the governor
valve sequencing. This is clearly confirmed
by a comparison of the trends in Figures 10
and 12.
The subsynchronous vibration experi-
enced by this plant for many years before
the upgrade project had been sporadic and
insignificant enough to have no appreciable
impact on total measured vibration. After
all, if a variable isnt measured, trend analy-
sis isnt possible. This dormant unstable
condition was theorized to be the cause of
the sudden increase in the subsynchronous
component due to an unknown and unex-
pected excitation. In this particular case,
investigators determined that the rubbing
condition (illustrated in Figure 6) was the
excitation source causing the sudden in-
crease in subsynchronous, or oil whip insta-
bility, vibration.
But what caused the original rubbing, es-
pecially given that the turbine was initially
started and loaded without any evidence
of rubbing? Evidence of the rubbing was
clearly seen in a photo of the labyrinth seals
taken after excessive vibration was observed
during the November 20 coast-down (Figure
13).
The solution to both observed problems
was to increase the stability margin of the ro-
tor-bearing system by modifying the bearing
geometry. This one modification increased
the stability margin of the HP rotor-bearing
system under rubbing conditions and nozzle
valve bearing-loading conditions.
The original HP bearings were of the
partial center slot type with a 0.96-inch
slot in the lower half. The HP bearings were
modified by increasing the slot width by 0.61
inchto 1.5 inchin order to increase the
HP rotor bearing systems stability margin.
Modification of the bearingsincluding
their removal, preparation of the drawing
with the modified geometry, machining of
the lower half, and reinstallationwas per-
formed in less than one week. The unit was
restarted on December 2 and demonstrated a
clear reduction in subsynchronous vibration,
which enabled the unit to return to commer-
cial operation.
Craig C. Jennings
(craig.jennings@exeloncorp.com)
is a senior rotating equipment engineer
for Exelon Power.
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
145
140
135
130
T
e
m
p
(
F
)
0 50 100 150 200 250
Load (MW)
Bearing #1 Bearing #2 Bearing #3 Bearing #4 Bearing #5
12. Temperature fluctuations. Bearing metal temperatures were also measured as a
function of load. The general shape of the curve is similar to the bearing loading shown in Figure
10. Source: MPS
13. Theres the rub. Evidence of rubbing found after the large vibration event. Courtesy:
MPS
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 56
POWER QUALITY
Protecting plant equipment
from voltage sags
Immunity from voltage sags is vital for reliable operation of our ever-more-
sophisticated electronic controls and equipment. Every electrical product
should be able to ride through typical voltage sags, but in many cases the
first sag test occurs after equipment is installed and in operation. Select
the appropriate sag immunity specification and equipment compliance
testing, and youll be glad you did.
By Andreas Eberhard, Power Standard Labs
M
odern equipment can be sensitive to
brief disturbances on utility power
mains. Electrical systems are subject
to a wide variety of power quality problems
that can interrupt production processes, affect
sensitive equipment, and cause downtime,
scrap, and capacity losses. The most common
disturbance, by far, is a sag: a brief reduction
in voltage lasting a few hundred milliseconds.
Sags are commonly caused by fuse or
breaker operation, motor starting, or capaci-
tor switching, but they are also triggered by
short circuits on the power distribution system
caused by such events as snakes slithering
across insulators, trenching machines hitting
underground cables, and lightning ionizing
the air around high-voltage lines. Many utili-
ties report that 80% of electrical disturbances
originate within the users facility.
A decade ago, the solution to voltage sags
was to try to fix them by storing enough en-
ergy somehow and releasing it onto the AC
mains when voltage dropped. Some of the
old solutions included an uninterruptible
power supply (UPS), flywheels, and ferro-
resonant transformers.
More recently, engineers have realized that
voltage sag is really a compatibility problem
with at least two classes of solutions: You can
improve the power or you can make the equip-
ment tougher. The latter approach is called
voltage sag immunity, and equipment man-
ufacturers have several compliance standards
that you should be aware of when specifying
future equipment purchases (Figure 1).
Standards developed
Three main primary voltage sag immunity
standards are discussed in the following
paragraphs: IEC 61000-4-11, IEC 61000-
4-34, and SEMI F47. There are others in
usesuch as IEEE 1100, CBEMA, ITIC,
1. Immunize your plant. Voltage sag immunity testing has been common in the semiconductor industry for years and has proved its
economic value. New IEC standards for voltage sag immunity will expand this kind of testing and certification to other industries. Courtesy: Power
Standard Labs
January 2008
|
POWER 57
POWER QUALITY
Samsung Power Vaccine, international stan-
dards, and MIL-STDbut the first three
seem to have the widest acceptance in the
marketplace. (IEC is the International
Electrotechnical Commission, SEMI is the
Semiconductor Equipment and Materials
Institute, CBEMA is the Computer Busi-
ness Equipment Manufacturers Association,
ITIC is the Information Technology Institute
Council, and MIL-STD is the U.S. Defense
Departments specification.)
IEC 61000-4-11 and IEC 61000-4-34 are
a closely related set of standards that cover
voltage sag immunity. IEC 61000-4-11 Ed. 2
covers equipment rated at 16 amps per phase
or less while IEC 61000-4-34 Ed. 1 covers
equipment rated at more than 16 amps per
phase. The latter was written after IEC 61000-
4-11, so it seems to be more comprehensive.
SEMI F47 is the voltage sag immunity
standard used in the semiconductor manu-
facturing industry, where a single voltage sag
can result in the multi-million-dollar loss of
product if a facility is not properly protected.
The semiconductor industry has developed
specifications for its manufacturing equip-
ment and for components and subsystems in
that equipment. Enforcement is entirely cus-
tomer-driven in this industry, as semiconduc-
tor manufacturers understand the economic
consequences of sag-induced failures and
generally refuse to purchase new equipment
that fails the SEMI F47 immunity require-
ment. SEMI F47 is currently going through
its five-year revision and update cycle.
All three standards specify voltage sags
with certain depths and durations for the
equipment under test (EUT). For example,
a specification may state 70% of nominal
for 500 milliseconds. The percentage is the
amount of voltage remaining, not the amount
that is missing. Each standard specifies pass-
fail criteria for EUT when a voltage sag is
applied; the IEC standards have a range of
pass-fail criteria, but the SEMI F47 standard
is more explicit (Figure 2).
Three-phase testing
For three-phase EUT, the sags are applied
between each pair of power conductors, one
pair at a time. If there is a neutral conduc-
tor, this implies that there are six different
sags at each depth-duration pair: three differ-
ent phase-to-phase sags and three different
phase-to-neutral sags. If there is no neu-
tral conductor, there are just three different
phase-to-phase sags at each depth-duration
pair in the standard.
Note that IEC 61000-4-11 and 61000-4-34
specifically forbid creating phase-to-phase
sags by sagging two phase-to-neutral volt-
ages simultaneouslyan approach that is
permitted in SEMI F47. Instead, you must
create phase shifts during your phase-to-phase
sagssomething that sag generators designed
for these standards do automatically (Figure
3). Typical suppliers of compliant sag genera-
tors include Keytek (www.keytek.com), Pow-
er Standards Lab (PSL, www.powerstandards
.com), and Schaffner (www.schaffner.com).
Test equipment required
A voltage sag generator is test equipment
that is inserted between the AC mains and
the EUT. It generates voltage sags of any
required depth and duration. Some, like the
PSL Industrial Power Corruptor, include pre-
programmed sags for all of the IEC, SEMI,
or MIL standards.
Because a common EUT failure mecha-
nism is a blown fuse or circuit breaker during
the current inrush after a voltage sag, the sag
generator must be specified for delivering
large peak currentstypically in the hun-
dreds of amps. This peak current requirement
in the IEC standards means that electronic
amplifier AC sources generally can only be
used for precompliance testing, not for certi-
fication (Figure 4).
The portability of sag generators is a key
consideration. It is often impossible to bring
larger room-sized industrial equipment to a
test lab. Instead, the test lab must travel to
the equipment. In general, the largest por-
table sag generators can handle no more than
200 amps per phase at 480 volts (Figure 5).
Some of the standards, such as SEMI F47,
offer specific advice about how to test EUT
that require more than 200 amps (usually by
breaking them down into subsystems).
0.01 0.02 0.1 1 10 100
Area included in specication
0.05 to 1 second
Duration of voltage sag in seconds
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
n
o
m
i
n
a
l
v
o
l
t
a
g
e
(
%
)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2. Playing through. A typical example of a voltage sag ride-through curve compared
with the SEMI F47 specification commonly used in the semiconductor industry. Source: Power
Standard Labs
L2
L3
L1 100%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
P
P
3
0
U
L
3
L
1
UL
1
N
Notes: P = the percent phase-to-phase dip, expressed
as a fraction of the nominal phase-to-phase voltage.
U
L1N
= the voltage from L1 to neutral (if a neutral
conductor exists), expressed as a fraction of the
nominal phase-to-neutral voltage.
U
L3L1
= the voltage from L3 to L1, expressed as a
fraction of the nominal phase-to-phase voltage.
3. One phase at a time. The IEC stan-
dards require phase shifting during sags on
three-phase systems, but sags on all three
phases simultaneously are not required.
Source: Power Standard Labs
4. Portable power. Portable voltage sag
generators like this Industrial Power Corruptor
from Power Standards Lab handle hundreds
of amps at three-phase voltages while remain-
ing portable. Built-in standards help speed up
testing; built-in digital oscilloscopes help the
test engineer diagnose equipment problems.
Courtesy: Power Standard Labs
POWER
|
January 2008 58
POWER QUALITY
Many conformance certification labs sub-
contract voltage sag testing to labs that have
engineers with the training and experience
both to perform sag testing and to help di-
agnose EUT failures. This is an especially
attractive approach when certifying large,
industrial loads.
For testing smaller commercial and indus-
trial loads, many labs rent a voltage sag genera-
tor from PSL or another supplier. Such a rental
often comes complete with over-the-phone
engineering support from an experienced sag
testing engineer. This can be the best way to
get started on voltage sag immunity testing.
A different kind of testing
In contrast to most other emissions and im-
munity testing, votage sag testing requires
the engineer to control and manipulate all of
the power flowing into the EUT. For smaller
devices such as personal computers, this is
not a great challenge. But for larger indus-
trial equipment, perhaps rated at 480 volts
three-phase at 200 amps per phase, with an
expected inrush current of 600 amps or more,
the test engineer must be prepared for serious
performance and safety challenges.
Certain software, such as the sag immunity
testing software from PSL, comes with exten-
sive safety checklists. Some of the checklist
items are obvious (Who on the test team is
trained in CPR? Where is the closest fire extin-
guisher?), but some are less obvious (How do
we get access to at least two upstream circuit
breakers? Where is the closest trash can?).
Common failure mechanisms
The most common failure mechanism is lack
of energy. This can manifest itself in some-
thing as simple as insufficient voltage to
keep a critical relay or contactor energized or
something as complex as an electronic sensor
with a failing power supply giving an incor-
rect reading, which would cause EUT soft-
ware to react inappropriately (Figure 6).
The second most common failure mecha-
nism, surprisingly, occurs just after the sag
has finished. In such cases, all of the bulk
6. Anatomy of voltage sag. To test a new device, a voltage sag is introduced in the
power source (a). The waveform, which was about 40 amps peak before the sag in this ex-
ample, then increases to 450 amps peak after the voltage sag (b). The same current, this time
expressed as an RMS value, is shown. The next graph shows the same current, this time as an
RMS value. Before the sag, it was about 23 amps RMS (this equipment was rated at 30 amps),
but after the sag the current increased to 175 amps RMS. This behavior is not unusual (c). The fi-
nal graph shows the output of a DC supply during this sag (d). Courtesy: Power Standard Labs
5. Potential for problems. The voltage
sag test engineer will insert a sag generator
between the AC source and the equipment
being tested. Often, high currents (200 amps)
and high voltages (480 volts three-phase) must
be handled. Courtesy: Power Standard Labs
a.
b.
c.
d.
January 2008
|
POWER 59
POWER QUALITY
capacitors inside the EUT recharge at once,
causing a large increase in AC mains current.
This increase can trip circuit breakers, open
fuses, and even destroy solid-state rectifi-
ers. Most design engineers correctly protect
against this inrush current during power cy-
cling, but many do not consider the similar ef-
fects of voltage sags. Be careful when the test
procedure is developed; if you use a sag gen-
erator that lacks sufficient current capability it
will incorrectly pass the equipment if there is
insufficient current available to blow a fuse or
trip a circuit breaker in a half-cycle.
Another common EUT failure mechanism
occurs when a sensor detects the voltage
sag and decides to shut down the EUT. In a
straightforward example, a three-phase EUT
might have a phase-rotation relay that incor-
rectly interprets an unbalanced voltage sag
as a phase reversal and therefore shuts down
the EUT. A more atypical example would be
if you had an airflow sensor mounted near a
fan, it detected that the fan had slowed down
momentarily, and the equipment software
misinterpreted the message from this sensor
as indicating that the EUT cooling system
had failed. In this case, a software fan failure
signal delay is the solution to improve sag
immunity.
Another common EUT failure mechanism
involves an uncommon sequence of events.
For example, in one case, a voltage sag was
applied to the EUT and its main contactor
opened with a bang. But further investigation
revealed that a small relay, wired in series
with the main contactor coil, actually opened
because it received an open relay contact
from a stray water sensor. That sensor, in
turn, opened because its small 24-VDC sup-
ply output dropped to 18 V during the sag.
The solution was an inexpensive bulk capaci-
tor across the 24-VDC supply.
Many other failure mechanisms can take
place during voltage sags. The question to
the test engineer will always be: How do we
fix this problem? Usually, there is a simple,
low-cost fix once the problem is identified.
Protect your equipment
There is no one best place to locate a protec-
tive device for all your plant equipment. An
equipment protection program should begin
with identifying specific equipment items that
are sensitive to voltage sags, either through
hard experience or with the support of the
manufacturer. The ubiquitous UPS may not
provide enough of the right protection.
However, there are areas where voltage
sags have a history of interfering with plant
operations by affecting programmable logic
controllers as well as relays and contactors
in sensitive equipment. The best approach to
handling those problems is to specify new
equipment according to a particular voltage
ride-through specification, such as SEMI
F47.
If you have recently upgraded to adjust-
able-speed drives (ASDs) in your plant, you
are in luck. ASDs can ride through voltage
sags because of the inertia of the motor and
the connected load. Some ASD manufactur-
ers offer an optional voltage sag ride-through
feature.
Very short sags can be tolerated with fer-
roresonant transformers, magnetic synthesiz-
ers, or active series compensators. Others
have employed static transfer switches and
fast transfer switches that can operate within
two cycles to protect overly sensitive loads.
At PSL, we believe that only in extreme cas-
es should devices that eliminate voltage sags
on the AC circuit be considered because this
is the most expensive possible solution. How-
ever, the final selection of a solution requires
weighing the cost of equipment and produc-
tion losses against the cost of protection.
Andreas Eberhard (aeberhard
@powerstandards.com) is
vice president of technical services
for Power Standard Labs.
with Platts new suite of Electric Power System wall maps for the US
New U.S. Electric Power Suite of Maps include:
Megawatt Daily Pricing Regions
U.S. Electric Power System Map & CD-ROM
U.S. Utilities Service Territories
U.S. Power Generation
U.S. Transmission System
Northeast Electric Power System
ERCOT Electric Power System
N. America Electric Power System Atlas & CD-ROM*
WECC Electric Power System
*Coming August 2007
Visit www.maps.platts.com or call the Platts sales office at 1-800-PLATTS8
Priority code: JSUDI0707A
Visualize the electric power industry
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 60
MANAGEMENT
D
espite all the hype over the past few
years about the potential devastation
caused by large-scale baby boomer
retirements, recent studies say that age is
responsible for only 15% of U.S. workforce
attrition. According to the Department of La-
bor, in 2006 retirements shrunk headcount by
a mere 4.4%.
But heres another statistic that should
give utility executives pause: Last year,
quits rose to 19.4%up one percentage
point from 2005 and the highest rate in
many years.
In other words, if youre focusing on re-
tirements, youre ignoring nearly 80% of the
employee loss problem. But youre not alone.
Surveys report that only one in eight compa-
nies has a goal of addressing nonretirement
attrition.
Should organizations pay less attention to
aging workforce issues and more to the causes
of nonretirement departures? Not necessarily.
Why? Because every industrial organization
has unique characteristics and needs.
Management by fad
That uniqueness, however, can open the door
to unusual, unworkable, and expensive solu-
tions. Over the past two decades, fad after
fad has infected the business world. Con-
cepts such as large-scale downsizing, Y2K,
Total Quality Management, ISO 2000, Qual-
ity Circles, and e-business have swept across
the organizational landscape. Sometimes
these movements brought necessary changes
in some sectors. But few found broad interest
and long-term use.
Remember the counterintuitive efforts of
some bricks-and-mortar stalwarts to set up
e-business units during the 1990s (exempli-
fied by Time Warner letting itself be acquired
Workforce analysis:
Replacing management by fad
with management certainty
The biggest problem facing industrial managers is ensuring that theyll contin-
ue to have a skilled workforce. With so many people nearing retirement,
organizational skills are at risk, which poses a direct threat to operations.
Many companies are making big investments to capture the unique knowl-
edge and experience of graybeards before they move on. But that is just
one aspect of a far more complex issue.
By Brad Kamph, Interliance Consulting Inc.
Will your plant have qualified staff to fill all skilled jobs five years from now? Courtesy: Progress
Energy
January 2008
|
POWER 61
MANAGEMENT
by AOL), the billions spent to inoculate IT
systems against an imaginary Y2K bug, and
the reverence still being paid to the manage-
ment techniques popular in the high-flying
Enron days? In many cases, unproven man-
agement strategies and methods were imple-
mented unnecessarily. Sometimes they only
wasted time and money. In other cases, they
wreaked havoc on firms that had been very
successful.
For another example more familiar to
power engineers, lets briefly examine the
consequences of downsizing by electric utili-
ties. Turbine generator maintenance used to
be done by large in-house crews with access
to huge in-plant parts and equipment invento-
ries. A 1,000-MW plant may have had a full-
time major maintenance staff of 75 to 100,
many with decades of overhaul experience
under their toolbelts. Day-to-day mainte-
nance was carried out by another team of 25
to 35 people. With such personnel resources
on hand, outage planners had the luxury of
long lead times and slow budgeting. Man-
agement could predict easily and plan with
certainty.
Outsourcing, prompted by Wall Streets
closer attention to utilities quarterly re-
sults, radically altered maintenance and
outage planning and execution. Those big
in-house crews are now gone, replaced by
just enough people to oversee the work of
outsourcing contractors. Inventories have
shrunk, too. As a result, utilities and plants
now operate in thrall to productivity, domi-
nated by short-term planning. Long-term
projects, such as vital regional transmission
upgrades, are rarely given the priority they
deserve. The new corporate culture doesnt
quantify the effects of employee dissatisfac-
tion, which may be why more experienced
hands are quitting. No one likes work that
isnt fun anymore.
The bottom line is that management by
fad just doesnt work. Lean manufacturing
and Six Sigma techniques may work for Gen-
eral Electric, but not for smaller firms with
limited resources.
Bringing certainty to management
Engineers know that you cant control what
you cant measure. Developing future busi-
ness strategies is pointless without an ac-
curate assessment of the current business
environment. Understanding the issues is
especially critical to forward-thinking work-
force management. Here are some questions
that any utility or plant manager should be
askingand be able to answer:
How deep is my organizations knowl-
edge, and where will wholesale employee
retirements create gaps in it?
Is my firm capturing the knowledge of
senior employees long before they give
notice? If so, how? Am I confident that
the processes in place are capturing and
transferring the right kind of knowledge?
Which metrics are being used to gauge the
capability of my workforce?
Are my organizations business processes
modern and adaptable to changes in busi-
ness climate?
What kind of personnel should I be look-
ing to hire?
Are company training programs instill-
ing the skills needed to improve business
performance?
These questions can be answered by a
workforce analysis. It helps organizations
identify and quantify existing workforce
challenges, forecast future workforce needs,
and correlate them to business needs.
A workforce analysis leverages strategic
and tactical tools for isolating the existing
skills of an organization and measuring the
depth of knowledge within it. The analysis
then relates specific skills to the business rea-
sons for each performance requirement of a
job position. A workforce analysis also pro-
vides the following information:
The strengths and weaknesses of a work-
force.
Trends in attrition numbers, and their im-
pact on mission-critical business skills.
Key areas in need of training, process im-
provement, and knowledge capture.
The depth of knowledge within each job
class, and the importance of each task per-
formed by workers to achieving business
goals.
The organizational learning ratea mea-
sure of a firms ability to boost its produc-
tivity through experience and to transfer
knowledge between locations.
A map of the strategic skills and knowl-
edge gaps that have the biggest impact on
accomplishing the organizations mission.
A workforce analysis delivers exactly
what management needs to act with certainty
and precision.
Heres the first of three examples. At
one company, an analysis that correlated
the companys skill levels to its attrition
rate concluded that if nothing were done to
reduce attrition, skilled workers would be
unavailable to perform 63% of employee
tasks within five years. In this case, the rate
of skills attrition outstripped that of retire-
ments. Interliance Consulting pinpointed
the nature of the problem, identified the
most-endangered skills, and delivered to
management a tailored program for solving
the problem.
At a second company, workforce analysis
revealed a connection between the organiza-
tions learning rate and loss of skills. It found
that high attrition rates in certain departments
would reduce skill levels within those depart-
ments by 31% over five years at the current
learning rate.
At a third firm, an electric utility, the chal-
lenge was worker uncertainty. Through in-
terviews, the workforce analysis found that
the average O&M employee was less than
50% certain of his or her ability to perform
all tasks required by the position. Interliance
took this workforce analysis one step further.
After breaking down employee uncertainty
by position, the consultant delivered a report
containing the following information:
The relative levels of certainty for every
plant department and job description.
How those certainty levels would change
over time.
Which skills were most vulnerable to
loss.
The department needing the most atten-
tion.
Those results were then correlated with
statistics on the frequency and location of
the reported problem. The exercise enabled
Interliance to suggest changes in the utilitys
knowledge capture, skills development, and
process improvement initiatives.
Workforce analysis to the rescue
The product of a workforce analysis is a
business case that quantifies the value of
knowledge and skills and the cost of losing
them. Some consultants are paid hundreds of
thousands of dollars for vaguely worded and
therefore unworkable strategic solutions to
general problems involving knowledge cap-
ture, training, or business processes. By con-
trast, a workforce analysis delivers specific
proposals and rigorous analyses. In many
cases, implementing the suggested plans has
saved companies millions over time.
Another big plus of workforce analysis:
It doesnt take an eternity. Some consultants
spend years dissecting the woes of a single
production line, racking up thousands of bill-
able hours in the process. By comparison, a
typical workforce analysis costs much less
because it takes only about six weeks from
start to finish.
Brad Kamph (bkamph@interliance.com)
is president of Interliance Consulting Inc.,
a 20-year-old developer of workforce,
knowledge management, process opti-
mization, and performance measurement
strategies for energy companies.
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 62
NEW PRODUCTS
TO POWER YOUR BUSINESS
New thermal imager measures at long distances
Wahl Instruments Inc. has added a long-distance model to its line of Wahl Heat Spy thermal
imaging cameras. The model HSI3003 offers narrow-angle 9.1 x 6.8 field of view optics,
which enables detection and temperature measurement of small objects over long distances.
This affordable thermal imager is light, compact, easy to operate, and designed for hand-held
use. It also features a tripod mount for remote use.
The camera is fully radiometric and measures the temperature of every pixel. Easy Report software
allows the user to easily insert multiple images (with data) taken during a site survey to produce an
inspection report. The imager features a 160 x 120 pixel, uncooled microbolometer array, capable of
displaying high-resolution, real-time, thermal images on a bright 3.5-inch color LCD display with LED
backlight.
Users can select from among four color palettes. The instrument has a temperature range of 32F to
482F and a trigger-activated, Class II laser that precisely identifies the problem hot spot shown on
the marked center of the display. Two measurement cursors, movable anywhere in the image, provide
temperature readings at each cursor location and indicate real-time differential temperature measure-
ment between the two points anywhere along the temperature range. High-quality images can be
captured and manipulated online, or problems can be resolved on the spot. (www.palmerwahl.com)
High-speed megapixel video camera
Photron Inc., a global high-speed imaging system and
image analysis software supplier, has released Phase II
of the ultra-light-sensitive high-speed imager, the Fast-
cam SA1. The high-speed CMOS sensor technology in the
next-generation Fastcam SA1 delivers up to 5,400 frames
per second (fps) at full megapixel (1,024 x 1,024) reso-
lution and an unequalled 675,000 fps at reduced resolu-
tion. With true 12-bit resolution for extraordinary color
fidelity, microsecond global shuttering, and inter-frame
timing, the improved imager is also DC powered and fea-
tures both SDI and RS-170 video outputs for easy inte-
gration. The camera has a user-controlled variable region
of interest and also supports IRIG/GPS when precision
time stamping and synchronization are required.
The camera is available with three memory options8
GB, 16GB, or 32GBfor the most demanding imaging
applications. Features include full control via Gigabit Ethernet or, for greater flexibility, remote control via the accompanying
LCD keypad. The system is extremely intuitive and requires minimal or no operator training.
An optional particle image velocimetry facility is available to study the flow of gas in a wind-tunnel environment or to
analyze flow in fluids, such as pump cavitation. (www.photron.com)
Get accurate measurements in low-flow-rate applications
The Extended Linearity (EL) 500 Series of electromagnetic flow meters from Flow Technology
Inc. are available in line sizes from
1
8 to inch and represent the state of the art for accurate
low-flow-rate measurement in a wide range of applications. The EL 500 Series creates a unique
electromagnetic field profile, ensuring accuracy not only in turbulent flow but also during the
transitional and laminar flow regimes.
These compact meters provide extended linearity and a wide measurement range of up to
1,000:1 without the aid of linearization software. The EL 500 has a bidirectional flow capabil-
ity with no moving parts and no pressure drop. The meters cover 4F to 320F.
These meters base their operation on the Faraday Principle, by which a conductor crossing
a magnetic field generates a potential. The resultant potential is directly proportional to the
flow velocity. Connections can be supplied in Hastelloy C or titanium. The standard liner mate-
rial is PTFE. The flow meters enclosure is stainless steel.
Electronics available for the EL 500 series consist of a base transmitter with optional panel-
mounted display as well as a multiple-output converter with an integral display. Electronics
can be mounted directly on the flow meter or remotely. When the electronics are remotely
mounted the flow meter meets Ingress Protection (IP) Standard 68, making it suitable for
permanent immersion in water up to a depth of 5 feet. (www.ftimeters.com)
FOR MORE DETAILS VISIT WWW.DARATECHPLANT.COM OR CONTACT KIM ARELLANO AT
832.242.1969 EXT. 313 OR KIMA@TRADEFAIRGROUP.COM
Organized by:
Media Partners:
12775
Achieving Max
Performance with
Limited Resources.
Who Should Attend:
CEOs CTOs CIOs
Why Should You Attend:
Participate in strategic
discussions
Network with and learn from
your peers from around the world
Discover innovative ideas and
best practices
See emerging technologies
Create strategic alliances
JANUARY 28-30, 2008
WYNDHAM GRE E NSPOI NT HOT E L
HOUST ON, T E XAS
Global Interaction Technology Solutions
Lowering Risk Total Execution
POWER
|
January 2008 64
Inclusion in New Products does not imply endorsement by POWER magazine.
Wide-temperature-
range wireless data
logger
TandD Corp.s RTR-52Pt wireless data
logger uses industry standard three-
wire Pt-100 RTD (resistance tempera-
ture detector) sensors, available from
many sources. With a temperature
measurement range from 328F to
+1,100F, the RTR-52Pt is ideal for
cryogenic applications, including
liquid NO
2
. In addition, it has an
IP-64 water resistance rating.
The RTR-52Pt is compact, portable, and battery operated. Sensors are attached
using a standard three-wire screw terminal block. The unit features a large liquid
crystal display for reading current values and the device status. The RTR-52Pt can
store 8,000 readings in either one-time or endless recording mode.
This new model is compatible with any TandD RTR-5x Series of wireless data
collectors. (www.tandd.com)
Compact SCADA system
RTU features
open programming
Semaphore, a CSE Global company, has intro-
duced its Kingfisher G30 compact remote ter-
minal unit, which features open programming
and many advanced features for SCADA sys-
tem applications. The G30 RTU also extends
the full capabilities of Semaphores Kingfisher
PLUS+ product line to small SCADA system ap-
plications requiring up to 32 I/O points. Like
Kingfisher PLUS+, the G30 RTU allows open
programming in all five languages specified
by IEC 61131-3 and supports IEC 61499. An
extensive library of function blocks that in-
clude applications such as AGA flow calcula-
tions is also provided.
The Kingfisher G30 RTU introduces ad-
vanced capabilities normally found only in
much larger products into a compact RTU
that is cost-effective for small installations.
The G30 RTU has been specifically designed
to meet the needs of customers with sig-
nificantly increasing demands for processing
power, data storage, and communications ca-
pabilities.
Integral communications include Ethernet,
USB 2.0, and an on-board module that pro-
vides flexible communications options.
By employing an ARM 7 processor on an in-
telligent I/O module, the Kingfisher G30 RTU
can process inputs and outputs on a 1-ms
interval with full sequence-of-events moni-
toring. It also provides high-resolution input
acquisition, failsafe output modes, high-
speed counting, and pulse generation.
Unlike the brick style products in its
class, the Kingfisher G30 RTU uses configu-
rable modules for communications, I/O, and
AC or DC power. The modules provide users
with considerable flexibility in meeting ap-
plications requirements and enable future up-
grades. (www.cse-semaphore.com)
New IR flammable
and CO
2
gas sensor
detects hazards
The Xgard IR from Crowcon is a
new, low-cost IR flammable gas
and CO
2
sensor designed for use
in fixed-point detection systems
where conventional detectors can
prove unreliable or suffer from in-
terference or damage.
Conventional flammable gas de-
tectors based on catalytic pellis-
tors are susceptible to poisoning
in some industrial atmospheres.
This can make their readings un-
reliable and even destroy the sen-
sor altogether. The new Xgard IR is
totally immune to poisoning and
will reliably warn of gas hazards in environments that are unsuitable for other
sensor types. Infrared sensing has other benefits too. Unlike catalytic pellis-
tors, IR sensors will fail to safety, detect flammable gas in inert backgrounds,
and are not damaged by high gas concentrations.
This new IR sensor can be specified with either of two types of enclosure:
polyester-coated aluminum or 316 SS for maximum corrosion resistance in
extreme environments. The sensor, which has a life expectancy of over five
years, is a simple plug-in module that makes replacement quick and easy.
(www.crowcon.com/usa)
65 January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com
GE
Energy
Global Power Plant Opportunities
GE is recognized as a world leader in the design and manufacture of power plant
equipment of all types. GE power plants have been constructed in virtually every
part of the world. GE brings a wealth of experience, knowledge, expertise, and
product offerings that have consistently set the industry standard for excellence.
Available career paths include:
Project Managers
Project Engineers
Contract Managers
Project Controls Specialists
Related experience in Power Plant, Petro-Chemical,
or Process Plant Engineering and Construction.
Locations:
Schenectady, NY
Belfort, France
Norcross, GA
Dubai, UAE
Visit www.gecareers.comto reviewthe current openings or apply for a specific opportunity.
Houston, TX
Montreal, Canada
Shanghai, China
Site Managers
Proposal Engineers
Mechanical Engineers
Project Cost Engineers
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
GENERAL MANAGER
HYDRO ELECTRIC GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
NORTHERN QUEBEC, CANADA
Our client owns and operates two 5 MW and one 10 MW Hydro-Electric Generation and
Distribution operation in Northern Quebec, Canada. They need a General Manager to supervise
the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the system, hiring, training, safety, customer
service, budget, purchasing, payroll, contract administration, etc. Liaison with Quebec Hydro and
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro authority. The successful candidate will have a minimum
of 10 years in Electrical Utility Management, should be Bilingual (English/French) and have
Post-Secondary Education in Business Management, Accounting or Engineering or equivalent
in experience. The successful candidate may commute from Montreal, Quebec City, Sept-Iles or
Labrador City. Position may be a 3 year contract or permanent position. Our client also needs an
Operations Manager for the same operation. Very competitive remuneration package.
For further information, please call or e-mail Ernie Stoakley, President,
Stoakley-Dudley Consultants Ltd.
Tel: (905) 821-3455 or 1-888-226-6685 Ext.227
stoakley@stoakley.com
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
Management Technical Contract
Nuclear Fossil Renewable T&D
Sanford Rose Associates
265 Main St. Akron OH. 44308
888-333-3828 Fax 330-762-6161
resume@SROCPower.com
Best Recruiters in Power!
Opportunities in Operations and Maintenance,
Project Engineering and Project Management,
Business and Project Development,
First-line Supervision to Executive Level Positions.
Employer pays fee. Send resumes to:
POWER PROFESSIONALS
P.O. Box 87875
Vancouver, WA 98687-7875
email: dwood@powerindustrycareers.com
(360) 260-0979 l (360) 253-5292
www.powerindustrycareers.com
dom.com
Become one of our most exciting...
Energy sources.
We are Dominion. As one of the nations leading
energy companies with over 16,800 employees and
$45.54 billion in assets, we do more than deliver the
energy that meets the demands of life. We also
develop and maximize the potential of our most
exciting energy sourcesour people.
Mechanical Engineer
Somerset, MA
Use your knowledge base of electric power
production systems and processes to support the
operation and maintenance of a coal-fired power
plant.
We are seeking a mid- to senior-level engineer to
perform a wide variety of mechanical projects,
O&M support, and assessments. Will obtain project
requirements, engineering, costs, schedules, RFPs,
construction, startup, and documentation/reporting.
O&M experience will include carrying out
equipment/system assessments, inspections, and
root-cause analysis.
Seeking a highly motivated self-starter with a BS in
engineering, 5-15 years of related experience in
power generation, and strong communication,
computer, and organizational skills. PE license
required.
Dominion offers competitive salaries and a wide
array of employee benefits. To apply for either of
these opportunities, please visit the Career section
of our website at www.dom.com/jobs/index.jsp
Dominion is committed to diversity in its
workforce. EOE, M/F/D/V.
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 66
Classied Advertising
Myla Dixon
Phone: 832-242-1969 Ext. 311 Fax: 832-251-8963
mylad@powermag.com
January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 67
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
READER SERVICE NUMBER 206
READER SERVICE NUMBER 207
POWER
EQUIPMENT CO.
444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090
wabash
24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE
BOILERS
20,000 - 400,000 #/Hr.
DIESEL & TURBINE GENERATORS
50 - 25,000 KW
GEARS & TURBINES
25 - 4000 HP
WE STOCK LARGE INVENTORIES OF:
Air Pre-Heaters Economizers Deaerators
Pumps Motors Fuel Oil Heating & Pump Sets
Valves Tubes Controls Compressors
Pulverizers Rental Boilers & Generators
847-541-5600 FAX: 847-541-1279
WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com
FOR SALE/RENT
READER SERVICE NUMBER 204
READER SERVICE NUMBER 205
Need a Thorough Mix?
Ash, coal, sludges, what do You need to mix?
Get a thorough mix with:
Pugmill Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 60
Columbia, TN 38402 USA
ph: 931/388-0626 fax: 931/380-0319
www.pugmillsystems.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 203
Norm Harty - The First and Last Word in Professional Dynamiting,
serving you since 1964. We have pioneered, perfected and proven
the methods of explosive cleaning the worst of s\lag or ash out in
a matter of hoursin all boiler areas. We specialize in Electric
Utility work and have over 4000 jobs to our credit. Call the
NUMBER ONE COMPANY for the quickest response and most
efcient job for your emergency needs and scheduled outages.
N.B. Harty General Contractors, Inc.
Phone: 573-624-4645 or 573-624-4588
Fax: 573-624-4589
E-mail: norm@nbharty.com
www.nbharty.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 202 READER SERVICE NUMBER 200
George H. Bodman
Pres. / Technical Advisor
Ofce 1-800-286-6069
Ofce (281) 359-4006
PO Box 5758 E-mail: blrclgdr@aol.com
Kingwood, TX 77325-5758 Fax (281) 359-4225
GEORGE H. BODMAN, INC.
Chemical cleaning advisory services for
boilers and balance of plant systems
BoilerCleaningDoctor.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 201
NEED CABLE? FROM STOCK
Copper Power to 69kv; Bare ACSR & AAC Conductor;
Underground UD-P & URD, PILC-AEIC; Interlock Armor to
35kv; Copper Instrumentation & Control; Thermocouple
BASIC WIRE & CABLE
Fax (773) 539-3500 Ph. (800) 227-4292
E-Mail: basicwire@basicwire.com
WEB SITE: www.basicwire.com
www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 68 www.powermag.com POWER
|
January 2008 68
READER SERVICE NUMBER 209
READER SERVICE NUMBER 208
READER SERVICE NUMBER 214
STGUs - 15 MW GE condensing 850#
steam pressure 3/60/13,800 volts -
GTGUs - 20 MW Brown Boveri oil red cheap
BOILERS - 200,000#/HR Combustion Engineering
package - 600# steam pressure - gas red
- 25,000#/HR ABCO - 150# steam pressure -
natural gas and propane red
We buy and sell transformers, boilers, steam
turbine generator units, gas turbine generator
units, diesel engine generator units, etc.
INTERNATIONAL POWER MACHINERY CO.
50 Public Square - Terminal Tower, Suite 834
Cleveland, OH 44113 U.S.A.
PH 216-621-9514/FAX 216-621-9515
Email: kernx06@sbcglobal.net Web: www.intlpwr.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 213
POWER PLANT
BUYERS MART
Demolition of Electric Power Generating
Plant and Paper Mill in Garfeld, NJ.
4 Steam Turbine Generators (GE & Westing-
house) and all related equipment: transformers,
pumps, panels, remaining switchgear, 200+ elec
motors (20 to 500+ HP, etc, etc. Walk-thru, make
an offer sale, Jan 30th.
RSVP jacss@rcn.com
READER SERVICE NUMBER 211
CONDENSER OR GENERATOR AIR COOLER TUBE PLUGS
THE CONKLIN SHERMAN COMPANY, INC.
Easy to install, saves time and money.
ADJUSTABLE PLUGS- all rubber with brass insert. Expand it,
install it, reverse action for tight t.
PUSH PULL PLUGS-are all rubber, simply push it in.
Sizes 0.530 O.D. to 2.035 O.D.
Tel: (203) 881-0190 Fax:(203)881-0178
E-mail: Conklin59@aol.com www.conklin-sherman.com
OVER ONE MILLION PLUGS SOLD
READER SERVICE NUMBER 210
READER SERVICE NUMBER 212
August 2007
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69 January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69 August 2007
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69 January 2008
|
POWER www.powermag.com 69
POWER PLANT BUYERS MART
<6ppmNOx
With CRI Catalyst/Shell DeNOx
components
FIeld Installation
On package boilers to 250,000 lb/hr
Simple Operation
No special facilities, permits, controls
or modifications required
Low Pressure Drop
2" WC means no fan changes
Call 1-800-227-1966
1-510-490-7100
Or Visit: www.nationwideboiler.com
CataStak