 |
Powerplant Cooling Systems
Power Plant Cooling System Performance
Modeling
Dynamic Solutions LLC has assembled an
outstanding staff of mechanical and environmental engineers with
extensive experience in evaluations of cooling tower performance and
the impact of thermal effluent discharges on ambient temperature in
rivers, lakes, reservoirs and estuaries. Dynamic Solutions personnel
have performed numerous cooling tower performance and water temperature
modeling studies at over 25 public and private electrical utilities
including the TVA, Duke Power Company and others.
Both nuclear and fossil fuel
electrical generating plants often use natural draft cooling towers to
dissipate some, or all, of a generating plant's waste heat into the
atmosphere. Cooling towers are typically designed in conjunction with a
submerged outfall diffuser system for the discharge of the heated
cooling water effluent to comply with State and federal water quality
standards for water temperature to protect aquatic life in the river,
lake, reservoir or estuary The performance of the natural draft cooling
tower of an electrical generating facility is thus a critical component
of the overall system designed to minimize the thermal effluent load
discharged to surface waters.
Cooling tower performance degrades
over time due to broken and displaced components as well as an
accumulation of organic matter and debris withdrawn from the source of
cooling water. Severe deficiencies in cooling tower performance can
sometimes lead to involuntary reductions in electrical output of the
generating plant because of operating constraints governed by either
cooling water NPDES permit limits for waste heat or the
turbo-generator. This operational penalty is frequently paid on top of
the loss of efficiency penalty that occurs during the hottest days of
the year, when replacement costs are greatest.
Unfortunately, simple empirical
statistical models simply are not able to capture the inherent hour to
hour and day to day variability of local climatology , ambient water
temperature and flow conditions of the river, lake, reservoir or
estuary that is required to accurately estimate the potential impact,
and costs, of a poorly performing cooling tower on the overall cooling
system of the electrical generating plant. As a result, Dynamic
Solutions has developed an innovative numerical modeling approach to
accurately predict electrical generating plant performance using actual
historical weather data. With our proprietary modeling software,
Dynamic Solutions can help you get a clear picture of your actual
costs. Our modeling software can be applied to accurately estimate your
electrical generating plant's heat rate penalty.

In developing a model of your cooling system, we will account for the
electrical service load, ambient receiving water conditions, weather
conditions, and operating conditions of the cooling system’s mechanical
equipment. We will obtain years of historical data to characterize
hourly fluctuations in wet-bulb and dry-bulb air temperature and daily
changes in ambient water temperature, water surface elevation and flow
of the receiving water. Working with your engineering staff, we will
also compile data to define the following electrical generating plant
operational parameters for your facility:
- Heat balances for individual units
- OEM performance correction curves
for the steam system and electric generators
- Condenser design
- Heat Exchange Institute condenser
performance
- Cooling water pump curves
- Historical service load
- Cooling tower performance curves
- Standard operating procedures,
including maximum low-pressure turbine backpressure, to estimate what
your plant could be generating and help you reach that goal.
The results of our modeling analysis
will tell you how much money is being wasted, on an annual basis,
because of poorly performing natural draft cooling tower equipment. Our
model will also give you the information you need to optimize cooling
tower efficiency and pump operations to maximize net power generation.
Dynamic Solutions, LLC Power
Plant Modeling Experience
|
| Plant |
Basic Steam Cycle Model |
Detailed
Steam Cycle Model |
Complete
Cooling System Model |
Basic
Cooling Tower Model |
Detailed
Cooling Tower Model |
Cooling
Pond Model |
Multi-Port
Diffuser Model |
Compre-hensive
Plant Model |
Long-Range
Historical Simulations |
| Allen Units 1-3 (coal-fired
subcritical) |
● |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arkansas Nuclear One (nuclear WH PWR) |
|
|
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
| Arkwright (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bellefonte Units 1-2 (nuclear ABB PWR) |
|
● |
● |
|
● |
|
● |
● |
● |
| Braidwood (nuclear WH PWR) |
● |
|
● |
|
|
● |
|
● |
● |
| Browns Ferry Units 1-3 (nuclear GE BWR) |
|
● |
● |
|
● |
|
● |
● |
● |
| Byron Station Units 1-2 (coal-fired supercritical) |
|
|
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
| Bull Run (coal-fired supercritical) |
● |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Colbert Units 1-4 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gallatin Units 1-2 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gallatin Units 3-4 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Grand Gulf (nuclear) |
|
|
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
| Hartsville (nuclear WH PWR) |
● |
|
● |
|
● |
|
● |
● |
● |
| Hope Creek (nuclear) |
|
|
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
| John Sevier Units 1-2 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Johnsonville Units 1-4 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Johnsonville Units 5-6 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Johnsonviille Units 7-10 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Miller Units 1-2 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mohave (coal-fired supercritical |
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nine Mile Point (nuclear WH PWR) |
|
● |
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
| Paradise Units 1-2 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
● |
● |
|
● |
|
|
● |
● |
| Paradise Unit 3 (coal-fired supercritical) |
● |
● |
● |
|
● |
|
|
● |
● |
| Scherer Units 1-2 (coal-fired supercritical) |
|
|
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
| Scholz (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sequoyah Units 1-2 (nuclear WH PWR |
|
● |
● |
|
● |
|
● |
● |
● |
| Shawnee Units 1-10 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stuart (coal-fired supercritical) |
● |
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Widows Creek Units 1-4 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
| Widows Creek Units 5-6 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
| Widows Creek Unit 7 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
| Widows Creek Unit 8 (coal-fired subcritical) |
● |
|
|
● |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|