GE Introduces Upgraded 7FA Gas Turbine for Power Generation; Improved Output and Efficiency
28 October 2009
| The upgraded Frame 7A gas turbine. Click to enlarge. |
Using next generation gas turbine technology to increase output and efficiency, GE Energy introduced an upgraded Frame 7FA heavy-duty gas turbine for 60 Hz power plants.
The power output of the new 7FA will increase to 211 MW—a 36 MW increase over today’s 7FA—in simple cycle operation. In combined cycle configuration (two gas turbines and one steam turbine), the power output will increase to 627 MW—a 98 MW increase in power generation. GE has also increased the efficiency in each configuration: thermal efficiency will increase to 38.5% in simple cycle operation, and to 57.5% in combined cycle operation. Each point of efficiency increase translates to major savings in fuel costs for each megawatt of power produced.
(As a point of comparison, the Siemens SGT6-5000F gas turbine for 60 Hz power plants offers a power output of 208 MW and efficiency of 38.590% in single cycle operation.)
| A single 7FA gas turbine has around 17x more cubic volume than a standard school bus. |
The upgraded 7FA compressor features 3D aerodynamic airfoils in a 14-stage compressor that increases airflow and robustness. Three variable stator inlet guide vane stages with additional variable geometry stages enhance operability and flexibility. The blade are field-replaceable, reducing outage times. Additional borescope port locations enhance inspection capability, and a prognostic system enables early detection of blade characteristic changes.
The new turbine uses the DLN 2.6 combustor—a proven combustion system with more than 14 million hours of service and 380,000 starts. The turbine component itself builds upon the 7FA and 7FB experience to provide improved output and efficiency. It features single digit NOx and CO emissions across entire operating range.
The continuing evolution of GE’s gas turbine technology supports a growing industry trend toward the use of natural gas. A recent report by the Colorado School of Mines indicated that following recent discoveries, the United States now has 1,800 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the equivalent of 320 billion barrels of oil—more than Saudi Arabia’s 264 billion barrels. That available supply, coupled with the current low cost and the fact that natural gas emits less carbon than other fossil fuels, has spurred many power generators to consider switching from other fuels to gas.
A typical power plant operating two new 7FA gas turbines with a single steam turbine in combined cycle configuration would achieve a fuel cost savings of more than $2.1 million per year at a natural gas price of $6 per MMBtu when compared to a similar plant with an earlier version of the 7FA for equivalent net plant output, according to GE. This updated plant would also avoid the emission of more than 19,000 metric tons of CO2 per year compared to the earlier version.
Many companies have already evaluated the new gas turbine technology. Some of the first new 7FA turbines are planned for the proposed Oakley Generating Station in Oakley, Calif. The plant, which is projected to generate 586 MW of power, is being developed by Radback Energy, Inc., and is expected to be transferred to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) after it enters commercial operation.
Key regions for the upgraded, 60-hertz 7FA will include North America, Latin America, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. The upgraded 7FA will begin shipping in early 2012 and will be manufactured at GE Energy’s gas turbine facility in Greenville, SC.
The US has increased its natural gas reserves by 40% in the past few years due to a new drilling technology invented some 10 years ago that enable the extraction of natural gas from shale rock. The US is now actively searching for suitable shale formations to extract natural gas and as more is found the reserves goes up. There is a good report on this drilling technology and its potential to dramatically expand the global natural gas reserves in the New York Times see link below.
The fastest and least costly way to cut CO2 emissions is to convert existing coal plants to natural gas plants while also expanding power from wind turbines. Natural gas a wind power is the perfect fit because unlike nuclear and coal power natural gas turbines can start and stop quickly and thereby provide grid stability in a grid that depends mostly on power from wind turbines. The Western world could quit coal entirely in less than twenty years if this agenda was pursued.
Link - NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/energy-environment/10gas.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=natural%20gas%20technology&st=cse
Posted by: Account Deleted | 28 October 2009 at 01:27 AM
Yes Henrik, converting current most polluting coal fired power plants to NG would help. However, the cost differential will be a barrier. Unless polluters have to pay (up to $400/tonne/CO2) the change over to NG will not happen. $$$ + coal lobbies talk loud in USA.
Posted by: HarveyD | 28 October 2009 at 07:47 AM
And gas from oil shale is overhyped at the time, with little in the way of reliable cost and extraction data available by which to make projections.
Shale Gas May Be The Next Bubble To Burst
Posted by: Will S | 28 October 2009 at 09:05 AM
Hendrik,
No. The better way to reduce emissions and improve efficiency is to build new green field IGCC power plants, to replace the old toxic emitting antiques running today and grandfathered in by the Stupid Carter era Greens.
Few if any Utilities will do this conversion you describe, because of the Unintended Consequences of the actions of the stupid Greens of the Carter Administration. They decreed that if a Utility did the least bit of modernization of an old coal plant, they would have to then install all the latest and best technologies to eliminate pollution.
Consequently no one did; and all these antiques continue to spew toxic emissions, almost unchecked.
It would be far, far, better to build a new brand new plant with more efficient boilers, scrubbers, perhaps CCS, and even better thermal efficiencies that can now be obtained.
Save the natural gas for other uses; like continuing to displace oil for use in chemical feedstocks, pharmaceuticals and polymers.
That is a win, win. It actually reduces petroleum consumption; and also cleans the air, of toxic emissions while updating/expanding the electric generation infrastructure, for the coming of electric cars.
Meanwhile I congratulate GE on improving the thermal efficiencies of its gas turbines. Most Utilities would sell their first born, for a 1/4 % increase in efficiency.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 28 October 2009 at 09:08 AM
@stan
Damn those Carter treehuggers. Too bad the Coal Industry had no political power back then. If we had just left the Industry alone, we would have had Clean Coal™ 30 years ago and Appalachia would be clean and thriving.
Posted by: dursun | 28 October 2009 at 11:53 AM
As another point of reference, Siemen's Gas Turbine SGT5-8000H is 60+% efficient in CCGT mode!
Posted by: JN2 | 28 October 2009 at 01:01 PM
JN2,
Try comparing a Siemens F class generator to this GE F class generator. These things are supposed to be spec'd for extreme durability.
The H-class generator you bring up compares just fine with GE's H System which also meets 60% efficiency.
Posted by: Patrick | 28 October 2009 at 02:35 PM
It was Bush that allowed coal power plants to expand without upgrading. Clinton required them to upgrade if they were going to expand. I know of no Carter plan allowing them to pollute.
Posted by: SJC | 28 October 2009 at 07:34 PM
"If we had just left the Industry alone, we would have had Clean Coal™ 30 years ago and Appalachia would be clean and thriving."
I can't imagine any statement further from the truth...
Posted by: Will S | 29 October 2009 at 06:57 AM
Industries left alone would be using the cheapest low grade coal and polluting up to 5 times more to increase profits. That is what good business managers would do. Higher profits bring in higher bonuses and never mind pollution.
Why do so many think that INDUSTRIES will do what is right for us or hamanity? There is nothing further from the truth. All industries are for increased profits and bonuses. That is the name of the game.
Posted by: HarveyD | 29 October 2009 at 08:39 AM
Gas turbines are simply necessary for those areas which don't have enough hydropower to cover peak demand. They are cheap and reliable and always been so. They will become extremely relevant together with wind power which is available on average 30% of time. Base load will always be covered by coal or nuclear (may be new). Gas may be used for base load power generation for superheating steam for nuclear power plant since very low steam temperature from nuclear reactor to increase cycle efficiency. Coal is developing as well by increasing steam boiler heat and steam turbine heat characteristics. Electrical Efficiency is approaching to 50%.
I don‘t expect shift to the base load power generation on natural gas. The natural gas is too good and too scarce on global level. Europe has no home made natural gas. Offshore processing is still R&D stage.
Posted by: Darius | 29 October 2009 at 10:10 AM
Of course we can also develop a program with gas utilities to install CCHP units in residences. CCHP or Residential Power Units wean municipalities off coal fired electric by offloading as much as 33% of base load. Other benefits are greatly increased security, provision for community backup systems, jobs creation, jobs creation, lower demand on existing grid, lower grid and utility expansion costs, lower grid maintenance cost, more efficient use of NG reserves, and best of all...
A step toward energy independence.
Posted by: sulleny | 29 October 2009 at 12:02 PM
Peaking plants is what they are called here.
Fast response and startup and well suited to end of line (grid) points to enhance the grid. Infrastructure can be substantially downsized from the (wrong )end.
It may be a bit too big for the average coalmine methane or tipgas.
I hope they come with a sticker that says baseload only cause then they wouldn't work or it could void the warranty.
Posted by: arnold | 30 October 2009 at 03:17 AM
All you statist greens think that the only reason that more efficient cleaner power is created is because of your legal mandates.
You just have no historical basis for your twisted view of reality.
Pollution is wasted energy. The world was getting cleaner, and more efficient constantly, ever since the first crude attempts were used to harness human and then animal energy. You can even show that it was getting cleaner faster, than when some "green" laws were introduced that actually delayed and retarded it.
Thermal efficiency from better, more complete combustion, I.E. LESS Pollution!, has improved electric generation by some 15% from 1900 until 1970. That enormous increase was long before any emissions regulations were even conceived. Likewise, an ICE from 1900 is much more of a polluter than an ICE of 1970, before emissions regulations. If you want to see legal regulation in (ineffective) action look at a Trabant car or a Chernobyl reactor from that era.
Look at the Unintended Consequences of some/most green legal actions. Carter' goofy Grandfather "most efficacious emissions controls" for power plants insured that any old and aging power plant that could never justify spending hundreds of millions for pollution controls, but could for a few million in minor improvements, never got either of them.
T2B5 diesel laws in the US make sure that somewhat cleaner EU diesels are not present here. I actually support that regulation, but do you really argue that Green zealot laws did not delay EU diesel auto introductions here?
California's zany legally mandated CARB requirements for electric cars, way before the technology was ready, wasted billions of precious development dollars on a wild goose chase, that eventually had to be rescinded.
You can easily argue that we would be much further on course to Electrifying Ground Transport had not those precious billions been wasted.
Its happening again. AB32 is pure unadulterated horse manure, and impossible "feel-good-ism"; and a repeat of the CARB electric car mandates long before their time.
Ruling every single car, truck, train, and plane off the road in California, won't get even a 1/3 of the way to meeting the legal requirements mandated by AB32. Chasing after CO2 reductions, is largely stupid anyway; and certainly not neccessary on a crash emergency basis, as a thing to do.
So don't be smug. Meanwhile celebrate our mutual and desired victory over toxic pollution. It very near to happening!
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 30 October 2009 at 07:51 AM
dursun,
There was no political lobbying that worked. The know-it-all Carter era zealots, would not listen to reason. Everyone warned them what would happen but they smugly knew better.
A little parable.
Suppose you had an old car worth, say $2000 dollars. And it developed a small oil leak. If the repair cost a few hundred dollars you might do it. But suppose the all-knowing government stepped in and said that if you spend the few hundred to fix the leak, than you need to spend $10,000 more to add new pollution equipment designed since your old car was built.
Just What would you do?
Yes, just like everyone else. You would say, "Forget it. Its not worth it." I can buy a lot of cans of Oil for less than $10,000. Let it leak, until the old Jalopy just dies.
And that is exactly what all the Utilities have had to do.
Now what kind of political lobbying did it take to get these Carter era fools to march ahead despite all advice? Only self-conceited, know-it-all, H-U-B-R-I-S.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 31 October 2009 at 12:56 PM
Why glorify the single most polluting enterprise in the country?
Per capita pollution from our coal fired power plants is much higher than it was 100 years ago.
Posted by: HarveyD | 04 November 2009 at 06:43 AM
You have your facts a little wrong. Per capita pollution is was down, any way that you choose to measure it; and for all industry, not just coal powered electric generation.
Although I will concede that there is an outsized number of very aged, gransdfathered-in polluting coal plants about. But as described, the ones responsible for that state of affairs are green zealots and their rank stupidity in the Carter Administration.
If second generation nuclear plants were allowed to be completed, most of the coal antiques would have been scrapped long ago. If the Carter era goofball greens had half an ounce of brains, most of the antiques would have much cleaner but not "cleanest" emissions.
The first ten percent of counter emissions spending, that was probably justified in most cases, reduces the emissions by an outsized amount, as any law of diminishing returns asserts.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 04 November 2009 at 10:45 AM