International Power Summit Rome, 22 24 February 2017 Flexibility of the conventional Power Plants as necessary response to the electricity market conditions
Agenda: - famous triangle: security of supply, cost effectiveness, environment - RES development challenging traditional electricity producers - new materials for USC boilers needed for a reaction on market requirements - taking measures for higher flexibility of power plants by increased load changing rates, reduced minimum load, optimized start-ups - conclusions.
Costs Security of Supply Environment - early 90-ties: capacity remuneration - liberalization, connection with UC(P) TE Current situation: - electricity only market, distortions resulting from RES extension
2050 EU Energy Road Map
2030 Climate and Energy Package -20% Greenhouse gases emissions 20% RES 20% Energy Efficiency 10% Transborder capacities -40% Greenhouse gases emissions 27% RES 27% Energy Efficiency 15% Transborder capacities New Energy Union Governance System
RES development challenging traditional electricity producers - EU Energy and Climate policy as important driver for RES development generation - high rate of new-built renewables as result of strong suport schemes - priority access and zero variable costs favourable against any fossil fuel - no way out of renewables - spreads for thermal plants declining, closures and mothballing even of new plants - no improvement in the market situation is expected - if no market price signals occure, political intervention is needed for the SoS and to secure competiteveness of the power industry
How can large thermal plants survive in the future? (1) - the design of new build power plants will change - market driven modernizations of existing assets - expected behaviour of plant operators - optimized efficiency (boiler, auxiliaries) - better availability (failure analysis, maintenance strategies) - reduced start-up times, ramping - optimization of dispatching (variable cost analysis) - flexibility of power generating units (load gradients) - cost optimization (fuel, maintenance, staff) - plant shutdown (permanent, temporary)
How can large thermal plants survive in the future? (2) Existing power plants - designed for base load operation 6 000 7 500 h/a - future scenario 1 500 4 000 h/a base load Flexibility improvement potential - start-up times and costs reduction - reduction of minimum load below 20 % (means decreased efficiency, but emissions have to be low) - maintenance procedures - optimization of critical components - control optimization crucial to reach the flexibility targets - knowledge of critical components material history is needed to assess the flexibility potential
New build plants design - strong position in the market due to - USC parameters and highest efficiency (it means low variable costs, low fixed costs, high performance) - extended flexibility (it means low start-up costs, cycling possibilities, low minimum load, fast ramping) - new materials for the boiler - problems with T24, damages in German PP - operators in Poland avoided risks related to T24 (13CrMo 4-5) - new inspections strategies needed (costs!)
Life time control of the critical components - quality control in the factories - introduction of life time calculating and monitoring systems for the boiler pipelines and single pipes of the boiler heat surfaces - periodical supervision procedures agreed with the Technical Inspection Authority - all documents related to the production and examination of elements and components in the factories stored in an archive
How to increase flexibility of the power plants? (1) Case Poland, new 900-1075 MW coal fired units - Designed for 200 thousand equivalent hours of operation - Agreement with TSO on the yearly figure of start-ups: cold 10 warm 25 hot 20 - Load changes, twice a day, in the range 40 (35) % up to 103 % (and down) - Load changing speed 4%/min - Ramping 3%/30 sec - Start-up time: hot 2h warm 3h cold 5h - German, Dutch case: stronger market requirements
How to increase flexibility of the power plants? (2) - reduction of the boiler technical minimum load Example: old 225 MW units, designed for operation above 140 MW (60 units of this size in the Polish Energy system) - reduced minimum load in steps: - 120 MWe - 90 MWe - depending of the burners configuration and combustion chamber size - proposals for duo-blocks construction
Measures and results obtained in Germany (1) - changes driven by new situation in the Energy market, resulting from RES extention - even new USC coal fired units commisioned in recent years are prepared to operate at changed conditions - close cooperation with the equipment suppliers
Measures and results obtained in Germany (2) - increased number of start-ups, mainly from cold and warm conditions - doubled from original design number of load cycles - positive results of minimum load without supporting oil burners below 20 % - faster load changes between the minimum and maximum load (even 3 % / minute)
Example from Moorburg Power Plant, 820 MWe unit - boiler in circulation mode at 24 % - operation at constant pressure - steam temperatures: - live: 580 C - reheated: 570 C - pure coal firing without supporting fuel - normal operation of environmental protection installations
Optimized shutdown and start-ups measures - reduction of heat losses during shutdown (positive impact on start-up time and oil consumption costs) - reduced time for obtaining start-up parametres for the turbine - 95 minutes for the cold start-up - 70 minutes for warm start-up - 35 minutes for hot start-up
Conclusions - Market conditions will not change in favour of the conventional generation. - Groving subsidized RES capacity threatens the future of conventional Power Plants and indirectly the SoS. - Conventional Power Plants are ablr to operate flexible, but they need remuneration.
Thank you for your attention