Use of steam jet booster as an integration strategy to operate a natural gas combined cycle with post-combustion CO2 capture at part-load
- 1. Research Centre for Carbon Solutions, School of Engineering & Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, EH14 4AS, Edinburgh (United Kingdom)
- 2. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico (UNAM), Ciudad de Mexico (Mexico)
- 3. Instituto Nacional de Electricidad y Energias Limpias, Reforma 113, col. Palmira, Cuernavaca Morelos, C.P. 62490 (Mexico)
Description
Highlights: • Use of a steam ejector in a natural gas combined cycle with CO2 capture at part-load operation. • Fixed pressure, sliding pressure and the use of steam jet booster were analysed and compared. • The ejector reduces the amount of steam extracted from the crossover to the capture plant. • Ejector avoids severe damage in the blades of the low pressure steam turbine. This paper aims to evaluate the integration of the steam jet booster in a natural gas combined cycle with CO2 capture at low part-load operation. The steam ejector takes a high pressure motive steam flows in a supersonic nozzle while dragging a low pressure steam which comes from the crossover. Both flows mix into one at fixed pressure of 3.5 bar and sent to the reboiler. The results are compared with two integration alternatives: uncontrolled and controlled steam extraction control. Uncontrolled steam extraction provides better part-load performance than controlled. However, with sliding pressure, at 42.3% gas turbine load the low pressure steam turbine operates at 27% of its capacity compared with 66% when the energy plant operates without capture, this imposes a potential risk to the integrity of the turbine. When the steam ejector is integrated, there is no significant improvement in the efficiency compared with sliding pressure strategy. However, the used capacity of the low pressure steam turbine increases from 27% to 42.8%. Therefore, the use of the steam ejector represents a solution to avoid severe damage to the low pressure steam turbine, thus bringing more flexibility, and ensure that steam extraction will not impose any constraint to the energy plant with CO2 capture at part-load.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.148Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.148;
- PII
- S0360544218319182;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Energy (Oxford)
- Journal Volume
- 165
- Journal Page Range
- p. 126-139
- ISSN
- 0360-5442
- CODEN
- ENEYDS
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 53001005
- Subject category
- S42: ENGINEERING; S54: ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES;
- Descriptors DEI
- AFTERBURNERS; CARBON DIOXIDE; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; COMBINED CYCLES; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; EFFICIENCY; EXTRACTION; GAS TURBINES; NATURAL GAS; NOZZLES; PRESSURE RANGE KILO PA; PRESSURE RANGE MEGA PA 10-100; PRESSURE RANGE PA; STEAM TURBINES
- Descriptors DEC
- AIR POLLUTION CONTROL; CARBON COMPOUNDS; CARBON OXIDES; CHALCOGENIDES; CONTROL; ENERGY SOURCES; EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION; FLUIDS; FOSSIL FUELS; FUEL GAS; FUELS; GAS FUELS; GASES; MACHINERY; OXIDES; OXYGEN COMPOUNDS; POLLUTION CONTROL; POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT; PRESSURE RANGE; PRESSURE RANGE MEGA PA; SEPARATION PROCESSES; THERMODYNAMIC CYCLES; TURBINES; TURBOMACHINERY
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.