Revving Up the Latest Reciprocating Engine Technologies March 7, 2018 Garrett Meyer Performance Engineer
Reciprocating engine power plants appear in surprising places. 2
What is the technology? 3
A reciprocating internal combustion engine (recip or RICE) in a power plant operates much like in your car. 4
This presentation focuses on large (7+ MW) gas recips and large (50+ MW) recip power plants in the US. Many more uses and vendors for smaller scales, listed below for reference. Some Recip Applications Combined Heat and Power Remote Power Backup Power Chilled Water with Absorption Chiller Black-Start Capability Mechanical Drive Some OEMs of Smaller Recips Wärtsilä GE/Jenbacher Cummins Hyundai Siemens/Dresser-Rand MAN Rolls-Royce Mitsubishi Power Systems GE/Waukesha 5
Recips pair well with newer intermittent power sources. Fast start times Fast load ramping Low wear from cycling Good engine part-load efficiency Short minimum offline periods ERCOT Wind Integration Report 2/12/18 Reprinted with permission from ERCOT 6
Recips can work almost anywhere there is fuel. Performance independent of ambient conditions Low water consumption Low gas pressure required Low black start energy required Good energy density Light industrial design buildings with low profile Exhaust heat available for hot water demand Weaker in NOx and PM10 emissions 7
Their smaller size and modularity give several advantages. Blocks scale with power demand Quicker and simpler shipping and construction Good facility-level part-load efficiency Good facility-level forced outage rate Wärtsilä 18V50SGs, Port Westward 2 PGE 8
The standard scope of supply allows plug and play. Item Gas Engine with Turbocharger Generator & Flexible Coupling Base Frame for Engine and Generator Excitation System Engine Maintenance Platform Engine Lube Oil System Exhaust Gas System Gas Regulating Unit Starting Air System Cooling System Charge Air System Engine Controls Note silencers, ducting, bellows, rupture discs, AQC equipment (as applicable) typically air-cooled radiators, sometimes intermediate heat exchangers with open loop by others for inlet air OEMs looking into packaging units to reduce construction time and cost. 9
Why not combustion turbines? 10
Today s simple cycle market Recips are the clear leader in simple cycle efficiency. 11
Today s combined cycle market Recips lose out in combined cycle power and efficiency. 12
Recips take no derate for most ambient temperatures. 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.10 Correction Factor 1.05 1.00 0.95 0.90 Output Heat Rate 0.85 0.80 0.75 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ambient Temperature, deg F 13
Combustion turbines suffer at higher temperatures. 14
Recip part-load performance is strong compared to simple cycle combustion turbines. 14,000 13,000 12,000 Gross Heat Rate, Btu/kWh (HHV) 11,000 10,000 9,000 Frame CTG Recip 8,000 25% 50% 75% 100% Load 15
Recips can be more capitally intensive than simple cycle combustion turbines. Simple Cycle Plant EPC Overnight Capital Cost, $/kw 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Plant MW Recip CTG Recips can recover in the levelized cost of electricity. 16
How is the market? 17
Recips are growing more prevalent. Operating/Planned Capacity, MW 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Some units are still in service after 67 years. 18
Today s large recip product line RECIP MODEL MW Engine Efficiency (LHV) lb-co2/mwh-gross Hyundai H46/60V 13.7-22.9 NA NA Wärtsilä 18V50SG 18.8 48.6% 821 MAN 18V51/60G TS 18.5 49.6% 803 MAN 18V51/60G 18.5 48.8% 818 MAN 20V35/44G TS 11.6 NA NA Wärtsilä 20V31SG 11.4 50.0% 796 Rolls-Royce B36:45V20A 11.2 49.8% 800 MAN 20V35/44G 10.2 47.2% 846 Caterpillar G20CM34 9.75 46.5% 859 GE Jenbacher J920 Flextra 9.35 49.9% 798 Wärtsilä 20V34SG 9.34 46.3% 862 Rolls-Royce B35:40V20AG2 9.00 47.9% 833 Kawasaki KG-18-V 7.50 49.0% 815 Wärtsilä 16V34SG 7.43 46.0% 868 19
Large recip plants in the US are increasingly common. Power Plant Cap MW Status COD State OEM Model New Orleans Power Station 128 Planned 2020 LA Wärtsilä 18V50SG Sundt Gen. Modernization 100 Planned 2019 AZ Wärtsilä 18V50SG Denton Energy Center 113 Planned 2018 TX Wärtsilä 18V50SG Coffeyville Power Plant 56 Operating 2017 KS Wärtsilä 18V50SG Marquette Energy Center 50 Operating 2017 MI Wärtsilä 18V50DF Red Gate Peaker Power Plant 225 Operating 2017 TX Wärtsilä 18V50SG Pioneer Generating Station IC 112 Operating 2016 ND Wärtsilä 20V34SG Stillwater IC Plant 56 Operating 2016 OK Wärtsilä 18V50SG D.G. Hunter Expansion 60 Operating 2016 LA Wärtsilä 20V34SG Sky Global Power One 52 Operating 2016 TX Jenbacher J920 FleXtra Eklutna Generating Station 170 Operating 2014 AK Wärtsilä 18V50DF Port Westward Unit 2 224 Operating 2014 OR Wärtsilä 18V50SG Rubart Station 108 Operating 2014 KS Caterpillar G20CM34 Antelope Station 167 Operating 2011 TX Wärtsilä 20V34SG Humboldt Bay Repower 163 Operating 2010 CA Wärtsilä 18V50DF Pearsall IC 202 Operating 2009 TX Wärtsilä 20V34SG Goodman Energy Center 101 Operating 2008 KS Wärtsilä 20V34SG Plains End Expansion Facility 116 Operating 2008 CO Wärtsilä 18V34SG Basin Creek 52 Operating 2006 MT Caterpillar G16CM34 Western 102 GS 118 Operating 2005 NV Wärtsilä 20V34SG Plains End 57 Operating 2002 CO Wärtsilä 18V50SG 2+ GW of large recip power plants operating 20
Among the major OEMs, Wärtsilä has a clear lead in operating and planned gas capacity in the US. 2,500 2,000 1,500 MW 1,000 500 0 Wärtsilä Caterpillar Jenbacher Large Plant Models W 18V50SG W 18V50DF W 18V34SG W 20V34SG C G20CM34 C G16CM34 J J920 J J624 Waiting to see other OEMs enter the market. 21
What are the trends? 22
More aggressive technical characteristics Characteristic Past Present/Future Maximum Spark-Ignited Size < 10 MW > 18 MW Ramp Rate 2 MW/min-engine < 1 min (min-to-full) Start Time < 10 min 2 5 min Minimum Load 40 50% 20 30% Controlled NOx 8 ppm <= 5 ppm Controlled CO 25 ppm 8+ ppm Efficiency 42 46% 46 50% 23
Improved fuel flexibility Natural Gas Other gas fuels (bio gas, coal seam, coke oven, propane) Blending Recip Natural Gas Diesel Recip Dual Fuel Capability Natural Gas Diesel Recip Diesel 24
Battery storage is a potential substitute or complement to a recip power plant. Battery Storage Scaleable Starts in milliseconds Expensive (~$575/kWh), though coming down Time-limited Battery Storage Recip Batteries (or ultracapacitors) dispatch immediately Engines load firm when batteries deplete or demand grows Jenbacher and Wärtsilä have their own battery integrators Advantages over hybrid storage/combustion turbine plants in fuel-side startup time, ramp rate, and efficiency 25
Garrett Meyer 4555 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 310, Cincinnati, OH 45242 +1 913-458-2502 MeyerG@bv.com March 7, 2018
Backup Slides 27
Stack emissions and water consumption are competitive. Constituent ppmvd@15%o2 lb/mmbtu (LHV) NOx 2.5 5.5 0.01 0.022 CO 8-49 0.02 0.12 VOC 8 54 0.01 0.07 PM10 (total, 0.2 gr/100cf S) n/a 0.023 0.036 Cooling System Makeup, Gals/MWh ACHX (Radiators, STD) Negligible Wet Cooling Tower (5 COCs) 40-70 28
Choosing a Technology Donald Von Raesfeld Plant Best lifecycle cost is application-dependent. Capital costs vary significantly job-to-job. Maintenance costs vary significantly from machine-tomachine. Construction costs are based on level of modularization. Low capacity factors erode value of efficiency. Market drivers influence capital and operation costs. Best lifecycle cost is not always most efficient. Maximize owner value with technology competition. 29
Recip Example Project 30
PGE Port Westward Unit 2 Wind chaser facility Black & Veatch involved from start to finish. Feasibility studies Technology selection Public RFP development PGE s preferred EPC PGE self-build option selected in competitive public bid process with award to B&V as EPCM w/ Mechanical S/C Successful COD in December 2014 31
PGE Port Westward Unit 2 GE LMS100s Public RFP maximized: Owner control over final plant details Self-build competitiveness Shortlisted technologies: Technology Capital Cost Operating Cost GE LMS100 Low High Wärtsilä 18V50SG High Low Wärtsilä 18V50SGs, Port Westward 2 PGE Final selection dependent on PUC s load profile basis 32
PGE Port Westward Unit 2 Highlights Project next to the Columbia River Very environmentally sensitive site with corresponding local and governmental interest finished with great relations with all stakeholders Project next to an operating plant with numerous tie ins no incidents or impacts to PW1 operations Over 2600 stone columns driven in 4+ months before starting major undergrounds Very constricted site High seismic area Very demanding air permit and noise requirements Rigorous performance testing requirements Finished the project 30 days early 33