Power Generation Technology Blog Russia

power generation technology blog russia

The PowerTec Interview – Vladimir Raag Country Manager Russia and CIS, OSIsoft Europe

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

What is your position in the company and how long have you held this position?
I have worked as a Country Manager Russia and CIS, OSIsoft Europe since February 2009.

How long have you been in business in Russia and the Caspian?
Speaking of IT in general, my experience in this industry counts for over 20 years, including development, integration and sales of software for over 15 years.

What companies have you worked with in the Region?
OSIsoft make software for collection, storage and analysis of real-time data for companies working in various industries and have been present in the market since 1998. At present, we have over 60 clients in Russia and the CIS. Our clients are major companies in power, oil and gas and other industrial areas.

What is your most recent success in the market?
We make several large sales in Russia and CIS on a yearly basis, however, I would like to emphasize our success in strengthening the partnership with our Russian and global partners who develop turn-key solutions on our platform.

Have you had any recent product launches for the region?
We work with major ERP systems manufacturers,the networks of the global power industry. The introduction of these innovation concepts has already started in the markets of Russia and the CIS. Regarding specific products, I must mention products, joint solutions on OSIsoft MDUS and SAP EBS.

What are your thoughts on the Russian Power sector through to the end of this year and beyond?
We expect a restart of serious investments into the renovation of the infrastructure of power companies. The investment approach will undoubtably change as a result of the recession. Special emphasis will be laid on production optimisation, quick introduction and project efficiency. The above approaches have already been stated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of Russia at the Sajano-Shushenskaja hydro power station. Therefore, we are looking forward for the prospects of OSIsoft PI System sales.

What do you like the best about Moscow?
It’s hard to say – I was born here, and “the big city can be is seen from a distance”

Where in the world would you most like to visit and why?
Alps (French, Swiss, Austrian).  I like alpine skiing and I have been skiing for the last 25 years.

What is your hobby?
I mentioned skiing already. I also like motorcycles. Several years ago I went motorcycling around Europe. I don’t have much time now for my hobbies because of my work and family, but sometimes I grab my Honda Blackbird and hit the road in the evening.

Product Review: The Heller System

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

András Balogh and Zoltán Szabó

GEA EGI’s experiences & achievements in the field of water conservation type cooling systems
EGI in Hungary started its dry cooling activity nearly six decades ago, when indirect dry cooling for power plant applications was initiated by late Professor Heller, who founded EGI. In wider sense all indirect dry cooling may be referred to as the HELLER System, though the most efficient HELLER System applies to the direct contact
(DC) condenser.

By now the total power plant capacity equipped with this system System exceeds 25 000 MWe, with reference plants are located in 20 countries and include:
»    units operating under extreme ambient conditions: e.g. over the arctic belt with air temperature of -62°C or in sizzling deserts of +50°C, as well as in sites located at sea shore or at high altitudes up to 2000 m;
»    the largest dry cooled Combined Cycle Power Plant in the world (Fig. 1);
»    the only dry-cooled nuclear power plant in the world (4×12 MWe Bilibino NPS in Russia);
»    natural draft dry cooling towers through which flue gases of coal fired power plants are exhausted
»    cost efficient, environmentally compatible dry/wet derivatives of the HELLER System: 770 MWe equipped with supplemental spraying and 4300 MWe with parallel wet assisting or delugable cooler cells.

These plants provide a solid basis, both technically and economically, to develop the adequate cooling system for any unit rating and any climatic conditions. HELLER Systems are applicable for all kinds of steam cycles of fossil fuelled or nuclear power plants, as well as having the ability for cooling solar power plants [2],[3].

What is the HELLER System?
In a HELLER System the power plant waste heat is initially exchanged in a condenser (preferably in a DC one) to a closed cooling water circuit. The heat absorbed by the water is rejected to the ambient air in fine tube type heat exchangers. The moving air can either be natural, or fan assisted. (Fig.2).

If a DC condenser is used, then cooled water from the cooling tower flows through recuperating hydraulic turbines connected in parallel (or throttling valves) and is used in the DC jet condenser to condense exhaust steam from the turbine. The mixed cooling water and condensate is extracted by CW pump sets from the hot-well of the condenser. About 2-3 % of this flow – corresponding to the amount of condensates – is fed back to the boiler feed water system by simple booster pumps, taking water from the CW pump discharge branch (alternatively from the return CW line prior to entering the recovery hydro turbine). The major part of the flow is returned to the natural or mechanical draft dry cooling tower, where the cooling duty is performed by the so-called “cooling deltas” (water-to-air coolers) grouped in parallel sections. [1],[2],[3]

The Main Components of HELLER System are:
»    Condenser – surface or direct contact (DC) jet condenser. In most of the cases DC condenser is suggested since its terminal temperature difference can be as low as 0.3-0.6°K that is for a given cooling tower rating, a better vacuum can be obtained than with a surface condenser (where it is usually 3-5 ° K). However in special cases such as nuclear power stations or various power units serving district heating networks, a surface condenser is applied.

»    Hydro-machine groups. If the cooling system has a surface type condenser, regular CW circulating pumps are used. In the case of DC condensers generally two or three (for units larger than 600 MWe) identical hydraulic machine groups, connected in parallel are incorporated into the CW system. Each consists of a cooling water circulation & extraction pump, a recovery hydraulic turbine and a driving electric motor, mounted on a common shaft.

»    Draft options for air moving equipment. The HELLER System allows the use of either natural (Figs. 3 & 4) or mechanical draft (Figs. 5 & 6) (unlike the direct ACC, where only mechanical draft can be applied). For medium and large capacity power units, natural draft results in significantly better economics. The natural draft tower shell can either be of the usual reinforced concrete type (Figs 1 & 3), or a structural steel tower with aluminum clad (Fig. 4). For coal fired power plants flue gases can be exhausted through the natural draft tower – using a stack of approx. 40-50 m high instead of a tall chimney. This not only results in capital cost saving but also dramatically reduces the ground level concentration of pollutants [4],[6],[7]. For mechanical draft cooling systems we prefer to supply induced draft fans instead of forced draft ones – to reduce warm air recirculation (Figs. 5 & 6).

»    Air coolers. A great variety of water-to-air heat exchangers applicable for HELLER System. For power cooling tasks the best is the so-called Forgó-type; a plate-fin-and-tube, surface treated, all aluminum water-to-air heat exchanger of which different geometries are available. For some special applications Forgó-type heat exchangers are also supplied with carbon or stainless steel tubes and aluminum fins. Heat exchanger bundles, arranged in a V shape, form the assembly units, so-called “cooling deltas”.
The cooling deltas are grouped in parallel sections.

Dry/Wet HELLER System Options
GEA EGI has developed several cost effective dry/wet combinations derived from the all dry HELLER System aimed at improving environmental compatibility and water conservation issues relative to wet cooling; and increasing summertime heat rejection capabilities – and therefore also also turbine output (or reducing investment costs) relative to dry cooling. HELLER System is well suited to dry/wet combinations, as at lower ambient temperatures it is capable to establish in dry operation mode the same vacuum than a wet cooling plant.

Water conservation features of different dry/wet cooling systems can be classified by their annual water consumption referred to an all wet cooling system. [1],[2],[4]

Dry HELLER System with Supplemental Spraying (1-3%)

Supplemental spraying is used for peak-shaving in the hottest summer hours as well as improving plant availability at excessive conditions or in emergency cases (Fig. 5). Thus spraying is applied only for limited time period with quality water needed.

HEAD (Delugable) Cooling System (1-20%)

A further well-proven solution is the HEAD Cooling System (HELLER EGI Advanced Dry/Deluged). The system operates fully dry for a significant part of the year except during the summer hours coinciding with peak power demand. Then, an even water film (deluging) is applied on the special plate fins of the air cooled heat exchanger. The applied quantity of water is significantly more than the evaporation; therefore the excess water is collected and re-circulated after the addition of the necessary make-up. An interesting variant is when a large all-dry natural draft cooling tower is supplemented with mechanical draft dry/deluged HEAD cells to enhance summer capability. These cells can be located either inside or outside of the tower.
In the latter case for plants operating in areas of severe winter climate, the same cells can be used as so-called pre-heaters during the start-up period, ensuring a freeze-proof start even under the most unfavorable winter conditions.

HELLER System with assisting wet cells (5-40%)

A new brand of efficient dry/wet systems has been developed by integrating the dry HELLER System with evaporative cooling cells. The integration can be in parallel through a combined surface and DC condenser or through a surface condenser having separate sections assigned for the closed dry cooled circuit and the wet cooled one. Also they can be integrated either in parallel or in series via water-to-water heat exchangers for transforming the heat dissipation of the wet tower to the closed dry circuit. These systems offer great operational flexibility, high availability and, much better environmental compatibility than the wet cooling tower and remarkably lower investment cost and improved summertime heat rejection than all-dry cooling plants.

Summary
»    A completely closed and pressurized cooling circuit, where vacuum is limited to the small space of DC or surface condenser.

»    The intermediate cooling water circuit supports flexibility in tower when looking at distance and arrangement wise, without major cost or auxiliary power penalties.

»    A sectioned air cooler arrangement is used and easy & efficient online air cooler cleaning is ensured.

»    Air moving either by mechanical or natural draft as well as steam condensing by surface or DC condenser can be applied.

»    Natural draft allows the exhaust of flue gases via the cooling tower (stack-in-tower and FGD in tower slutions) resulting in capital cost saving and meanwhile dramatically reducing ground level concentration of pollutants.

»    The DC condenser and natural draft tower shell support high thermal efficiency and they are practically maintenance-free with 100% availability.

»    A variety of air coolers (material and surface wise) are available. The preference is for applying the FORGO-type mono-metal, all-aluminum air coolers for 40+ years life-span, withstanding external and internal corrosion, no flow accelerated corrosion (FAC), adequate for OT water chemistry.

»    The conventional condensate extraction pumps can be substituted by simple booster pumps with an alternative connection to the return cold line allowing to remain within resin temperature limit of CPP (i.e. in the most common cases 60 °C) even at max. ambient temperatures.

»    The large volume of water in the dry cooling circuit provides buffering condensate capacity as well as adequate conditions for CPP; and by its high thermal inertia can efficiently counter the negative effects of wind gusts (stabilizing back-pressure, thus avoiding surprise turbine trip at excessively warm ambient conditions).

»    The extra condensate volume in the DC condenser hot-well allows primary frequency control of supercritical cycles by condensate throttling.

Comprehensive assesment of cooling systems
It is important to identify the most economically viable cooling system as the decision has long lasting consequences – not only on the economics of the power plant – but also through its environmental impact on the surrounding area.

The best approach when selecting the most promising cooling solution is a comprehensive evaluation based on economic life-cycle issues. For comparing cooling systems and their impact on the cost items of the complete power plant shall be determined – alongside the investment costs, the  operation and maintenance costs and the effect of the equivalent unavailability (particularly important is the effect of cooling systems’ characteristics upon power output, year round generation, auxiliary power-and water consumption).  [1], [2], [5]

The results of such a comprehensive evaluation created a cooling systems serving an 800 MWe CCPP are introduced by Figs. 7 & 8 and showing the so-called economic viability envelopes (the relative economics of water conservation type cooling systems against wet cooling in the coordinates of two vital factors: specific electricity price and specific water price).

The all-dry HELLER System can extend significantly the economic viability of dry cooling (Fig. 7) and the dry/wet derivatives of HELLER System help to stop further areas from wet cooling (Fig. 8).

Another case study was put together for investigating cooling systems serving a 900 MWe supercritical coal fired power unit. Here the final results – presented in the form of a bar chart (Fig. 9) – show a massive reduction in costs of the all-dry natural draft HELLER System compared to a direct ACC.

Conclusions
»    The indirect dry cooling HELLER System and its dry/wet derivatives have successfully demonstrated their reliability and effectiveness.

»    Given the long lasting impact o a cooling method for a power plant and even on the surrounding area, iIs is important to compare the lifecycle v cost issue.

»    Evaluations show how the advanced HELLER System extends the economic viability of water conserving cooling. The natural draft HELLER System can be competitive on present value basis against wet cooling even at a medium cooling water make-up cost.

Literature References
[1] Balogh, A., Szabó, Z., The Heller System:
The Economical Substitute for Wet Cooling, Journal of Power Plant Chemistry,
Vol. 11, No. 11 (Nov. 2009), p 642-656

[2] Balogh, A., Szabó, Z., Heller System:
The Economical Substitute for Wet Cooling – to avoid casting a shadow upon the sky, EPRI Workshop on Advanced Thermal Electric Power Cooling Technologies, July 2008, Charlotte (NC)

[3] Hogan, M.,:
The Secret to Low-Water-Use, High-Efficiency Concentrating Solar Power, Climate Progress, April 2009,

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009802.html

[4] Balogh, A., Szabó, Z., The Advanced HELLER System: – Technical Features & Characteristics, EPRI Conference on Advanced Cooling Strategies/Technologies, June 2005, Sacramento (CA)

[5] Balogh, A., Szabó, Z.,:
Advanced Heller System to Improve Economics of Power Generation, EPRI Conference on Advanced Cooling Strategies/Technologies, June 2005, Sacramento (CA)

[6] Takács, Z.,: Flue Gas Introduction – Advantages of Dry Cooling Towers, 5th Int. Symp. on Natural Draft Cooling Towers, May 2004, Istanbul

[7] Szabó, Z.,: Cool for Coal, Journal of Power & Energy 1st quarter, 2004 – Asia Pacific Development

Contacts
Сита Янош/Janos Szita, директор по маркетингу в СНГ,
«GEA-EGI»моб. +36 30 914 2273
тел.  +36 1 225 6213
факс + 36 1 225 6193
e-mail:  janos.szita@geagroup.com

Адрес:
GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd.,
Science Park,
Building „B”,
4-20 Irinyi J. u.
1117 Budapest,
Hungary

Вишняков Сергей Васильевич,
директор ООО
«ПИИ «Экодельта»,
моб. +7-912 24 87 515
тел./ факс: (34377)3-13-09
e-mail: ekod2@mail.ru и ecodelta@uraltc.ru

Адрес:
624250, г. Заречный,
Свердловская область,
ул. Алещенкова,
22а.

PowerTec talks exclusively with Maxim Petukhov, General Manager of Elster Metronica

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Elster Metronica has established its position as one of the markets leaders within the field of metering equipment and is one of the key suppliers of electricity meters to the Russian power sector. Elster Metronica is part of Elster Group, is a world leader in Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), an industry leader and world-class provider of advanced metering products and intelligent metering solutions. The group has over 7,500 staff and operations in 38 countries.

ROGTEC talks exclusively with Maxim Petukhov about regional power developments; as General Manager of Elster Metronica, Russia, Maxim Petukhov is responsible for Elster’s electricity metering activities in Russia and CIS.

1. 2009 was undoubtedly a tough year for many companies across the globe. How did 2009 fare for Elster and what do you think 2010 has in store?

No year is alike in such a dynamic market as Russia. We have grown significantly during our 16-years history. At the same time we did experience slow-downs during the recession as the whole economy contracted. I think that the kind of slow down we had in 2009 is not all bad;, it actually provides for more opportunities to explore. It also gives customers a different perspective on their suppliers. Elster has been able to keep a leading position in C&I and Grid-level with metering, most of our customers remaining loyal to the quality and service level we offer. The crisis is not over yet, we expect another tough year, but we are well prepared and see further growth  this year.

2. The Russian power sector is going through some major changes with many new projects on the horizon. What does this mean for Elster Metronica and your plans for regional growth?

Our regional base is very wide, I doubt there is a region in Russia where no Elster equipment is installed or where a system is not using our software. Though large projects are often being financed from the center, the decentralization is on-going and we see it more as an opportunity rather than a hurdle, given the size of a country. Regional development is in our focus, we invest in marketing and business development activities in all the major regions throughout Russia.

3. And what are your plans to develop outside of Russia, in the CIS for instance?

This has always been a priority for us. Elster Metronica already has branch offices in Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Our brand is well recognized throughout the whole region, so we have a good basis for further expansion into CIS markets.

4. As Russia deregulates it power sector after years of state control, what has been the effect on the uptake of metering solutions?

Deregulation has had a dramatic effect on the metering market. The introduction of a wholesale electricity market has lead to a significant increase in demand for High-End and Grid-level AMR systems which are essential for participating in the market. Deregulation continues to be one of the main drivers of demand for metering systems that moves down the pyramid towards the energy consumers.

5. Metering is an important component for both utilities and end users, but what should a utility be looking for when purchasing metering systems?

The utilities are looking for systems that they can use efficiently to increase their revenues and improve the service they provide to the customers. The switching costs are high when you are talking about the utility-wide system thus the effect of the decision to use one or the other system will be long lasting. Respectively, the metering system of a choice needs to be based on the latest technologies, be reliable and adaptable.

6. What technology developments will drive this sector of industry in the future?

Firstly it is communication. This is a backbone of any system and drives the overall effectiveness. The meters now can feed other systems with the information whether it is residential, C&I or grid meter. Next is the interface to the outside world, for example, in-home displays or information exchange with various other systems.

7. The smart grid seems to be a hot topic across the world today – do you think Russia will benefit from the implementation of a smart grid? What can you offer in this area?

A smart grid will lead to more efficiency, effectiveness and reliability and this is exactly what is needed for the energy infrastructure in Russia. Smart grid and smart metering will inevitably come to Russia. We already offer smart meters that provide not only energy, but also other important measurements of telemetry and control systems. This improves the efficiency of the systems that are used by the utilities to control the quality and reliability of the distribution network. Elster also has proven smart metering solutions such as EnergyAxis and EnergyICT for residential markets. The experience we have in the European and American markets with AMI solutions will be used in Russia to support the future development of the smart grid.

8. It has been a pleasure to talk with you – do you have any final comments for our readers?

Today’s competition tends to be tough to all market players. Elster is ready to meet the most challenging demands of the future and existing customers. We are committed to promoting our solutions to the Russian market, providing the best service and bring our latest technologies to market to benefit our clients.

Energy Efficiency in Russia

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Danfoss – www.heating-danfoss.ru
Last year can be identified as the beginning of a new phase in the development of Russian Housing and Public Utilities Sector. The recent “Energy Efficiency” law, which was adopted last November, has changed the dynamics of the Housing and Public Utilities Sector as well as challenging its participants to review their economic priorities. How should we operate under the new conditions? The experience of companies which have chosen energy efficiency as their long term development policy will help to find the answer to this question.

It has become more and more apparent that energy efficiency is one of the principle trends in the development of the World Economy of the XXI century. The housing and Public Utilities Sector is no exception. Moreover, the issue of reducing energy loss is much more relevant than in any other sectors of the economy, as almost half of the fuel and energy resources of developed countries today is spent on the demands of public utilities.

Looking at Russia, the situation is more concerning. For example, Moscow public utility demands consume nearly 60% of entire generated heat and over a quarter of generated electricity. Moreover, between 40 and 70% of that energy is simply wasted. The situation throughout the country is not much better. Houses and buildings constantly leak heat through thin panel walls, though panel joints, through broken windows in communal staircases and through open windows, making Russian cities gigantic energy sieves.

To a large extent, the situation in the Housing and Public Utilities Sector has made the country’s  GDP energy intensity colossal; one of the highest in the world. Scientists and industry experts believe that this index could be reduced by more than 40%. However, this means that we have to significantly improve energy use; primarily by bringing the public utilities infrastructure in line with up-to-date standards of energy conservation. As a matter of fact, the main volume of heat loss today falls within residential buildings, not the city and district heat distribution networks. This problem alone requires the implementation of integrated solutions, which is, unfortunately, a great rarity these days. “Public utility services often base their decisions on the grounds of short term savings, or with a desk-top approach to the implementation of the requirements of the “Energy Efficiency Law”. For instance, they convert houses into the metering system, without conducting any works on modernisation of the heating systems. Whilst the meter, as such, can not provide any energy savings, subsequently, the heating bills rise, but consumption is not reduced. This only leads to a conflict between the occupants and the Heating Supply Agencies”- says Michael Shapiro, the General Director of Danfoss, the world’s leading supplier of energy saving equipment heating systems and heating supplies.

If any modernisation does take place, it is often of a half-hearted nature, whereas, if we are to achieve truly significant heat saving of 35 to 40%, the performance of every element of a housing heating system should be optimised. The first and most obvious step is the installation of the Domestic Heating Plant (DHP). This would allow an adjustment in energy consumption, depending on weather conditions. Moreover, DHP creates only the amount of heat required for the building.

However, those needs could and indeed should be optimised. For example, the residents should be given a chance to control their heat consumption, i.e. regulate the temperature of the heating radiators. Otherwise they will continue to heat the street through the open windows. The solution to this is radiator thermostatic regulating valves being installed in every radiator in the house where they automatically maintain room temperature which is set by the inhabitants. No less crucial is the automatic balancing of the system in the water risers, which allows equal distribution of hot water throughout the building. “Only an integral approach, together with the installation of metering equipment, can achieve an outright tangible economic impact, i.e. provide significant reductions in heat consumption within the lifecycle of the equipment”, said Michael Shapiro, “ and if, in addition to the one communal heating meter, individual distribution meters are to be installed in every flat, every resident would have personal motivation to save, which might give results even higher than the anticipated”.

Following the Ural Lead
It must be said, the problems of the Russian heat supply are not only of a technical nature. For instance, some people argue that the implementation of energy-efficient technologies has natural, inherent barriers. In particular the direct economic dependence of generating companies and public utilities on energy consumption. However, the reality reveals that these claims are not only far from the truth, but do not make sense. Energy conservation can significantly increase the efficiency of the generating companies, heating supply agencies and management companies. The question is how to develop the right strategy for restructuring this sector.

One of the best examples of an integral approach to the restructuring of city energy networks is the development programme for the heat supply system in Chelyabinsk, which is to be implemented in this year. As part of the project, 2500 DHPs are to be installed in multi-occupancy dwellings. Moreover, the energy company “Fortum” (the main heat and electricity supplier in the city) is planning to do it at their own expense, with the future intention to pass the maintenance of equipment onto the utility frameworks.

The calculation of the power engineers is simple. According to the Director of the Chelyabinsk Heat Networks, Sergey Lobanov, the cost of heat which is lost annually through open windows, comes to 635 million Roubles. In comparison, total losses due to heat leaks do not exceed 5 million Roubles.

These modernisation efforts will benefit to the city inhabitants as well. By the transition to a meter system, which is a compulsory requirement of the “Energy efficiency law”, the people of Chelyabinsk will be able to manage their own heat consumption, which means that heating bills will be reduced. According to specialist calculations, savings for the average family will come to 1700-2500 roubles in one heating season.

It should be noted that Fortum already has successful experience in implementation of similar projects in Tallinn, Riga, and other Baltic countries where inefficiency in heating supply is similar to that in Russia.

Regional Support for Energy Efficiency
It is not only Chelyabirsk that is implemented such programs. Recently, a heat supply company in Gatchina (Leningrad region), a town with nearly 100 thousand population, experienced  the problem of generating capacity deficit. We found ourselves in a difficult situation, – says the Chief Engineer of “Heating Networks of Gatchina ”, Vladimir Sharabakin. – the city utility networks were built a long time ago and were not modern consumption. In order to provide a sound heat supply, all the subscribers of the central part of the town have to change the main pipelines, which would allow the increase of the capacity of heating pipelines.

At the same time, our calculations reveal that heat which is supplied to the consumers is used inefficiently, particularly in the transitional periods between seasons. When the rooms get warm, people open their window and heat the street, whilst those losses significantly exceed our demands in additional energy resources.

If we are to change the elevator units in the houses to automatic domestic heating plants with weather-coordinating controls, the load to the city heating network will dramatically decrease. Moreover, after installing DHPs the heating systems in the buildings are closed and the required driving pressure in its internal pipework is created by pumping equipment, which is included in the heating unit. Consequently, we will be able to reduce the pumping load in the boiler plants which at the moment ‘pump through” the entire town. This also creates a
significant saving”.

A slightly different problem arose in the utility services of Zarechny of Sverdlovsk region. The residential stock of this town includes 200 multi-occupancy houses, which are connected to the central heating distribution system. Despite the fact that in winter the air temperature drops lower than – 30°C, in recent years the town dwellers suffered “overheating”. “Working temperature range in the town heating network is often unstable. As a result, the heat supply system received overheated water. Furthermore, it is not always frosty outside, – explains Director of the town servicing company LLC “Dez”, Sergey Skolobanov. – that is why it is always too hot in the houses. However, the residents do not have any tools to regulate the temperature. As a result, people pay for excessive heat, whilst they could spend that money, for example, on maintenance or upgrading their houses.

In order to rescue the situation, the decision was made, as part of the federal overhaul program, to equip all the houses with domestic heating plants. Interestingly, it was the management of the company who recommended its implementation to the owners. During last year, sixty residential  houses in Zarechny were equipped with Danfoss control units, which allow temperature control at the building inlet in accordance with differing weather conditions. Now the temperature inside the houses is always comfortable. The outcome was the conversion of the remodelled houses to the metering system.  “Not only have we solved the problem of “overheating”, but received 20% savings on the heating bills, – says Sergei Skolobanov. – Next year we are planning to submit another application to the Housing and Utility Reform Foundation to conduct reconstruction work on another 70 buildings”.

Most of the developed countries in Europe first experienced deficit of energy resources 30 years ago. The stumbling block back then, just like today in Russia, was excessive energy consumption of the housing and public utilities sector. However, the experience of the recent decades proves that this problem is solvable. Moreover, in the course of its resolution, the public utilities sector may well reach another level of efficiency. Today, similar transformation has begun in Russia Significant steps have already been taken The most important thing is to learn from experience from countries that have had similar problems in the past, and indeed follow the lead of regional authorities who are striving for a new, energy efficient Russia.

The Business of Power: Powering Performance Improvement

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Barry Dyson
Partner, Financial Advisory Services and Power Performance Improvement
Deloitte CIS

Three key CEO questions
The business of power is a uniquely complex and real time challenge. Traditionally the power company role was to keep the lights on. Today, the objective is to make returns for the owners. What three things in connection with the financial health of a power company should be on the CEO’s mind when he comes into his office each morning? In the new world of deregulated markets he probably – ideally – wants to know, with a reasonable degree of confidence:

»    how much the company made yesterday;
»    how much it could have made;
»    what it should learn from that to be smarter tomorrow.

These are relevant questions, but with often interesting responses. In most power companies, the first question might be answered on the day, the second maybe within a few days and the last could take a few weeks to answer. This is too much time for companies to optimize the making of good decisions about their business when they have the challenge and opportunities of near real time markets.

With a few exceptions, power cannot be stored. Markets exhibit volatility and risk. They present opportunities for significant gains – and losses. So, how should we learn to continuously optimise the business?

The answers – innovative technical and human support
Technology and new business processes can come to the CEO’s help in providing those answers. The CEO needs this help now more than ever, as he is surrounded by a turbulent and volatile market, increasing real time business pressure and involving an already stressed workforce. Enough near real information to allow rapid and effective analysis, as well as decision support tools, to improve asset performance and optimize commercial results, are now all within reach. The ubiquitous information infrastructure can hide the complexity, simplify the business decision making processes and turn data into knowledge. Imagine you would be the one to whom the CEO would address himself with these three questions every morning; imagine that he may want relevant, intelligently presented information about your business health as well; in that case, you might have also some questions, for example:

»    what is our current performance?
»    how does it compare with what we planned?
»    what is the trend?
»    are we getting better or worse?
»    who owns the problems and when will we get resolution?
»    what is management doing to deal with these problems?
»    What can we learn to avoid them in future?

DIKDAR – Find and operate best practice in the power plant and it’s market
The power market has interesting and unique dynamics, as has each individual power plant. – so how do we start? Except where there are old or under-invested plants, there’s usually no shortage of data and no shortage of knowledge. Utilities with older assets need to invest in measurement, data collection, validation and monitoring as a first step. Also, in Russia, there is no common methodology, for example, for calculating online performance. So, converting data into knowledge has mostly been achieved by individuals using their brainpower and as a result the know-how is locked up in employees’ heads and therefore difficult to access! In mature developed power markets, some companies have learned “best practice” in the achievement of their business objectives. These will include the integration of technical, operational and commercial processes within their market facing company operating model. As an example, learning how to maximise profitability, not reliability, requires different measures and skills, as it is a major change from the days of “keeping the lights on” at all costs.

This new approach we call Turning Engineers into Businessmen. To do this we have to use another best practice to provide them with the information, tools and key indicators of success, so that they can trade the plants profitably, opportunistically and without breaking them. Investment in the right information infrastructure can largely protect the plants from abuse – silently monitoring and watching operations and events – providing a level of protection not possible with purely human oversight. This also provides added triggers for operational and maintenance functions, anticipating events before they become disasters and providing triggers to support the required equipment maintenance and diagnostics.

One advanced company found they could push the plant to achiever much higher commercial availability, while reducing maintenance and outage costs and made this real time information available to both its insurers and its outage repair contractors, making the investment pay back in just months. It particularly reduced outage times and repair costs and improved plant efficiency. It also provided quality operations, avoiding many expensive surprises for the traders and system operators and the consequent underperformance penalties. Unit control systems were tuned, using the new information infrastructure, so that loading instructions could be followed within a 0.2% accuracy, at the same time as maximising operational flexibility and thermal efficiency.

Returning back to our three questions, their value lies in their visibility to engineers and management. Instead of everyone searching for answers in paper, charts, logs and possibly peoples heads, let’s imagine what could be going on behind the scenes – and imagine if only we could do it automatically!

Data – we may have no shortage of this – with some investment, there will be more than 20,000 bits of it on big power units, it needs verification to make it reliable and comparable – and then we can turn the key pieces of data (often 300 to 500 signals) into -

Information – which includes learning and needs some processing to add value, before it turns into -

Knowledge – which can support our operating model, KPIs and key processes for us to take some -

Decisions – in order to produce -

Actions – and achieve the best -

Results, so we optimize our business model and ensure we are smarter today than we were yesterday!

It is essential to provide a window or portal on key indicators of business performance and risks – operational, technical and financial. Second, behind this dashboard, the key performance indicators (KPIs) thus measured can be cascaded down to the decision makers and knowledge workers in your business in a performance framework. In this way, their success is also yours.

It is possible to build timely, high quality information and knowledge and to find and automate best practice. We can use the DIKDAR infrastructure to understand which practices, skills or operators produce the best result at the lowest risk and cost. Quality of engineering, operational and commercial decisions are the goals – whether you are investor owned or regulated; generator, system operator or wholesaler. For example, tests on starting, loading, adjusting and shutting down the plant quickly and safely at the cheapest cost have shown a wide variability until the information is available to analyse and understand what produces the optimum. This can then improve our trading performance significantly while lowering cost and guiding maintenance and investment. One operator reduced the time and cost of start ups and shut downs by more than 50%, using these techniques.

From technical to commercial key performance indicators
As an example, take the average large power plant. Often 20 to 45 years old, historically underinvested because of the regulatory background, with up to a thousand staff and costing up to $1 billion or much more to replace. The highly trained and skilled engineers and managers do their best to maximise performance.

However, they need help to transition from being engineers to being businessmen, so they can be as effective in the new markets at maximising commercial performance, as they were at keeping lights on in the old utility world. They need to know what the measures of success are. As we have shown, they need to change their key performance indicators from technical to commercial. We can use technology to help them optimise performance decisions while “tuning” the plant to the market – so when they reduce cost and “get in the money”, meaning the price at which they would bid the plant to the market is less than the available market price, they do not leave that money on the table and maximise quality commercial performance at every opportunity they get.

If plant operators are asked about becoming businessmen, they usually relish the challenge, provided they have the tools and decision support techniques to simplify all the complexity of translating technical KPIs to financial ones and showing losses and problems in commercial terms. They will tell you they understand the commercial impact of the decisions they take to run their plant. They may go so far as to say that their asset maintenance and optimisation colleagues also need access to this translation of technical to business information, so they can support the operator in his mission to extract every cent of margin while still maintaining plant integrity.

The answer lies in new training and then refocusing their team work, so that the overall measure of maintenance and operator success – their KPI – shifts to commercial availability: maximising margin when “in the money” (when their cost of sales is below the market price and when the plant is running).

The Three C’s
Let’s return once again to our three questions which we started with:

»    how much profit did the company make yesterday – or what was its contribution margin?
»    how much could it have made – in other words, can commercial losses (both actual cost and lost opportunities) be quantified?
»    what can the company learn – does it have the knowledge to learn from that and be even smarter and more effective tomorrow, in other words, to improve the commercial availability?

Commercial availability as a term has been around for many years and has many definitions. With the help of real time information from the company’s IT infrastructure, the statistics can mean much more. Success in maximising the financial contribution from power generation energy sales, as $/MWh, in a competitive market is a result of minimising the cost of production and maximising the sales revenue. Maximising capacity payments and avoiding revenue losses and underperformance, as $/MW, is just as important.

To make this indicator more meaningful, and independent of units of measurement, we can use the two ratios as follows, related to the optimisation of the operation of a power plant:

»    actual thermal efficiency/design thermal efficiency provides a quality indicator of the conversion of fuel to electricity, or minimising the cost of production;
»    actual units sold in the period/units instructed or contracted to sell provides a quality indicator for maximising available revenue when in the money and contracted to sell.

Multiplying the two provides an indicator that a business is both minimising controllable cost and maximising controllable revenue – and therefore margin. Although technical problems and limitations can limit how much actual influence the plant operators have in real time, ultimately they are both a function of good decisions, investments, maintenance and operation.

Market-based maintenance
This brings us to the concept of Market-Based Maintenance. MBM is a concept that refers to the prioritising of maintenance and investments based on their impact on limiting loss of revenue earning capability, whether planned or unplanned. It also biases attention towards minimising controllable costs and deviations from design heat rate and efficiency.

In some companies, plant operators have used IT infrastructure and applications to provide the real time dashboard showing the operator controllable costs and actual production against that required. Algorithms monitor these and trigger “events” when the deviation reaches a threshold value and start a train of information and a log that records not only the event, but also a set of data and information which may be relevant to it.

If we now go back to the first two of the three questions (how much did the company make yesterday; and how much it could have made), we find that the new information and associated processes discussed provide ways of answering our third question (what can management learn from this to be smarter tomorrow), because the combined information reads as an on-line report of the day’s events – commercial event logs. These can have great impact on improving performance (commercial availability), because the maintenance planners and schedulers use them to prioritise activities.

It follows from the above that companies can use MBM to direct resources, to minimise controllable losses – or use the information to judge how effective maintenance or investments in plant performance have really been, so they can invest more wisely and so maximise market performance at minimum cost.

Maximise market capabilities – thanks to MBM
Experience shows that using Market Based Maintenance to “tune” plant performance to maximise market capabilities improves revenue from all three sources relevant for a power plant:

»    potential sales of energy, which cover variable costs;
»    potential payments for capacity, which cover fixed costs;
»    payments from ancillary services, such as improvements to minimum shut down times, minimum stable loads, times to change load on the units, reactive power and voltage control capabilities, which are usually very profitable as some have no fuel cost.

It is possible to shift the focus of the plant performance to optimise market performance. Traders and risk managers like this approach as it will improve asset optionality, thus allowing more flexible and better quality operations, better quality performance and cost visibility and certainty of actually running the plant as the available margin in the market incentivises it.

This experience has also shown the “window” on performance and the process of using dispatch load management event logs for tuning the plant using MBM. It has allowed operators in mature markets to produce better margins and to be more reliable – optimising expenditure for better performance results.

Active risk management – technical, operational and commercial risks and fines
As developments advance to liberalise markets, there are other considerations for the business men running the assets. Risk in its many forms is becoming top of mind, since a business not carrying out active risk management, can suffer potentially huge financial impacts, even if the cost factors are aggressively managed.  Active risk management comprises not merely having a risk process or even producing risk KPIs. It is an essential part of the new business management process and involves extensive, and automated in some case, use of the new information infrastructure. Measured or calculated risk KPIs are presented and updated on the management information portal home page. Risks are assigned to individuals who are required to optimise these against their commercial effects. Such active risk KPIs become visible to all and are important for both internal and external stakeholders to ensure the good “stewardship” of the business and give owners, operators and investors confidence.

Active risk management uses almost real time KPIs to provide visibility of these accountabilities and ensure that assigned risks and their economic consequences are within the limits acceptable to the Board of the business. Otherwise, market forces, financial pressures and profit opportunities might lead to unacceptable risks. Technology can again be used to quietly monitor and help us manage these risks and avoid unacceptable outcomes.

At the same time, expensive unplanned losses of performance must be avoided. System operators will use compliance monitoring of their market participants and impose penalties for under-performance, in order to minimise their use of more expensively bid plant to make up for poor operation. In response, one operator of large plant re-tuned his base load assets to make them flexible and more reliable, getting them “in the money” more by lowering their variable costs and at the same time extending their life and value.

The same infrastructure used to monitor the contribution margin, commercial losses and commercial availability, as well as automated commercial event logs, can provide the plant operator with his own view of compliance monitoring, so that he can not only avoid penalties in most cases, but also maximise revenue within market rules.

Conclusion
Investments in IT, KPIs and changes in process as well as the business operating model, are all necessary to make this work. Such investments have shown rapid paybacks, in less than a year in some cases. Information technology provides transparency of performance and with decision support tools enable much more automated, consistent and optimised performance management.

These improvements have been brought about by the need to make adequate returns despite changes in the market structure, where regulators are mandated to find ways to improve competition, quality and performance while maintaining reliability and actively managing risk.  We can now plan for both lower prices and improved returns, by using IT, new KPIs, processes and skills, to tune our business to the market. Business efficiency is energy efficiency.

The pragmatic approaches discussed enable these changes not only to be implemented, but the real innovation is that they can be implemented alongside strategies that enable owners of assets to reduce fixed and variable costs faster than the fall in market revenue, while still improving performance. If the new business technology and processes are implemented effectively, everyone wins.


Technology Developments & Plant Efficiency for the Russian Nuclear Power Generation Market

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Ian Hore-Lacy
Director of Public Communications, World Nuclear Association

Russia is forging ahead in respect to its nuclear power program, despite a setback due to the recent recession diminishing both power demand and available capital.

Currently it is building four different kinds of nuclear power reactors: the well-proven VVER-1000, the VVER-1200 development of this, the world’s largest fast neutron reactor – BN-800, and the first floating nuclear power plant with a pair of 40MWe reactors adapted from ships.

Russia’s operating nuclear plants, with 31 reactors totalling 21,743 MWe, comprise:

»    6 first and second-generation VVER-440 pressurised water reactors,
»    9 third generation VVER-1000 pressurised water reactors with a full containment structure, mostly V-320 types,
»    11 RBMK light water graphite reactors now unique to Russia.
»    4 small graphite-moderated BWR reactors in eastern Siberia, constructed in the 1970s for cogeneration.
»    One BN-600 fast-breeder reactor.

Several reactors supply district heating – a total of over 11 PJ/yr.

Generally, Russian reactors are licensed for 30 years from first power. Since 2000, lifetime extensions of twelve older reactors totalling one quarter of the operating capacity have been announced, with the extension period now 15 to 25 years, necessitating major investment in refurbishing them. This now often involves slight uprating of the power.

Rosatom is committed to a large expansion of nuclear capacity in order to liberate natural gas for export to Europe at prices far above those accounted domestically for power generation. Two thirds of electricity now comes from gas. The federal program envisages a 25-30% nuclear share in electricity supply by 2030, 45-50% in 2050 and 70-80% by end of the century.

In February 2010 the government announced that Rosenergoatom’s investment program for 2010 amounted to RUR 163.3 billion, of which RUR 53 billion would come from the federal budget. Of the total, RUR 101.7 billion is for nuclear plant construction, almost half of this from Rosenergoatom funds. It includes the reactors depicted below to 2015 plus the Baltic plant.

The Baltic nuclear power plant (2 x 1200 MWe VVER) in Kaliningrad is deliberately placed “essentially within the EU” and is designed to be integrated with the EU grid. Two thirds of the power would be exported to Germany, Poland and Baltic states, requiring some EUR 1 billion in transmission infrastructure. It will need some 49% European equity to proceed, though construction is scheduled to start in mid 2010, in Neman, close to the Lithuanian border. It is expected to cost some RUR 194 billion (EUR 4.45 billion, $6.6 billion) for 2300 MWe net.

The federal program is based on VVER technology at least to about 2030. But it highlights the goal of moving to fast neutron reactors and closed fuel cycle.

Transition to fast reactors
The BN-800 Beloyarsk-4 fast reactor designed by OKBM Afrikantov is intended to replace the BN-600 unit 3 at Beloyarsk, though the RUR 64 billion project has been delayed by lack of funds since construction start in 2006. At the end of 2009 it was reported as on schedule, though start-up dates range 2013-14. Two of these sodium-cooled BN-800 reactors have been sold to China, for 2012 construction start.

OKBM Afrikantov is developing a BN-1200 reactor as a next step towards BN-1800. Rosatom’s Science and Technology Council has approved the BN-1200 reactor for Beloyarsk, with pilot plant construction planned to start in 2020.

Moving in the other direction, and downsizing from BN-800 etc, a pilot 100 MWe SVBR-100 unit is to be built at Obninsk, by AKME-Engineering by 2015. This is a modular lead-bismuth cooled fast neutron reactor concept from OKB Gidropress, and is designed to meet regional needs in Russia and abroad. If built in clusters of 10 to 16 units it is claimed to be competitive with VVER types. (AKME-Engineering was set up in 2009 by Rosatom and the En+ Group, a subsidiary of Basic Element Group, as a 50-50 joint venture.)

The option selected for moving to fast reactors involves development of three different technologies: the existing sodium-cooled fast reactor of about 800 MWe, the lead-bismuth-cooled SVBR fast reactor of 100 MWe, and finally the lead-cooled BREST fast reactor of 300 MWe. In addition, a 150 MWt multi-purpose fast research reactor (MBIR) is to be built by 2020.  The total fast reactor budget to 2020 is about RUR 60 billion, largely from the federal budget. The program is intended to result in a 70% growth in exports of high technology equipment, works and services rendered by the Russian nuclear industry by 2020.

The BREST lead-cooled fast reactor to be built over 2016-20 will be a new-generation fast reactor which dispenses with the fertile blanket around the core and supersedes the BN-600/800 design, to give enhanced proliferation resistance. All of the RUR 25.7 development cost will come from the federal budget.

Aluminium and nuclear power
Since 2007 Rosatom and RUSAL, now the world’s largest aluminium and alumina producer, have been undertaking a feasibility study on a nuclear power generation and aluminium smelter at Primorye in Russia’s far east. This proposal is taking shape as a US$ 10 billion project involving four 1000 MWe reactors and a 600,000 t/yr smelter with Atomstroyexport having a controlling share in the nuclear side. The smelter will require about one third of the output from 4 GWe, and electricity exports to China and North and South Korea are envisaged.

In October 2007 a $7 billion project was announced for the world’s biggest aluminium smelter in the Saratov region, complete with two new nuclear reactors to power it. The 1.05 million tonne per year aluminium smelter is to be built by RUSAL at Balakovo, and would require about 15 billion kWh/yr. The initial plan was for the existing Balakovo nuclear power plant of four 950 MWe reactors to be expanded with two more – the smelter would require a little over one third of the output of the expanded power plant. However, in February 2010 it was reported that RUSAL proposed to build its own 2000 MWe nuclear power station, with construction to start in 2011.

Nuclear icebreakers and merchant ship
Nuclear propulsion has proven technically and economically essential in the Russian Arctic where operating conditions are beyond the capability of conventional icebreakers. The power levels required for breaking ice up to 3 metres thick, coupled with refuelling difficulties for other types of vessels, are significant factors. The nuclear fleet has increased Arctic navigation from 2 to 10 months per year, and in the Western Arctic, to year-round. Greater use of the icebreaker fleet is expected with developments on the Yamal Peninsula and further east.

The core capacity here is a fleet of large icebreakers, six 23,500 dwt Arktika-class, launched from 1975. These powerful vessels have two 171 MWt OK-900 reactors delivering 54 MW at the propellers and are used in deep Arctic waters. The seventh and largest Arktika class icebreaker – 50 Years of Victory (50 Let Pobedy) entered service in 2007. Two shallow-draught Taymyr-class icebreakers of 18,260 dwt with one reactor delivering 35 MW were built in Finland for use in shallow waters such as estuaries and rivers.

In 1988 the NS Sevmorput was commissioned in Russia, mainly to serve northern Siberian ports. It is a 61,900 tonne 260 m long lash-carrier (taking lighters to ports with shallow water) and container ship with ice-breaking bow. It is powered by the same KLT-40 reactor as used in larger icebreakers, delivering 32.5 propeller MW from the 135 MWt reactor and it needed refuelling only once to 2003.

Russian experience with nuclear powered Arctic ships totals about 300 reactor-years in 2009.

Floating nuclear power plants (FNPP)

Rosatom is planning to construct seven or eight floating nuclear power plants by 2015. The first of them is under construction at the Baltic shipyard at St Petersburg, designated for Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka. The second is planned for Pevek on the Chukotka peninsula in the far northeast, near Bilibino. Each has two 35 MWe KLT-40S nuclear reactors mounted on a 21,500 tonne barge 144 metres long, 30 m wide. Three 12-year operating cycles are envisaged, with maintenance between them.

Russia is developing a new icebreaker reactor – RITM-200 – to replace the current KLT 40 reactors. This is an integral 210 MWt, 55 MWe PWR with inherent safety features. For floating nuclear power plants a single RITM-200 would replace twin KLT-40S (but yield less power).

Heating
In addition, 5 GW of thermal power plants (mostly AST-500 integral PWR type) for district and industrial heat will be constructed at Arkhangelsk (4 VK-300 units commissioned to 2016), Voronezh (2 units 2012-18), Saratov, Dimitrovgrad and (small-scale, KLT-40 type PWR) at Chukoyka and Severodvinsk. Russian nuclear plants provided 11.4 PJ of district heating in 2005, and this is expected to increase to 30.8 PJ by about 2010. (A 1000 MWe reactor produces about 95 PJ per year internally to generate the electricity.)

Heavy engineering and turbine generators
The main reactor component supplier is OMZ’s Komplekt-Atom-Izhora facility which is doubling the production of large forgings so as to be able to manufacture three or four pressure vessels per year from 2011. OMZ is expected to produce the forgings for all new domestic AES-2006 model VVER-1200 nuclear reactors (four per year from 2016) plus exports. Forgings include reactor pressure vessels, steam generators, and heavy piping. The company has been reconstructing its 12,000 tonne hydraulic press, and a second stage of work will increase that capacity to
15,000 tonnes.

Turbine generators for the new plants are mainly from Power Machines subsidiary LMZ, which supplies high-speed (3000 rpm) turbines and plans also to offer 1200 MWe low-speed (1500 rpm) turbines from 2014. Alstom Atomenergomash will produce low-speed turbine generators based on Alstom’s Arabelle design, sized from 1200 to 1700 MWe.  Silovy Mashiny plans to invest RUB 6 billion in a factory near St Petersburg to produce half-speed steam turbine generators of 1200 MWe from 2013. It is 25% owned by Siemens.

Reactor technology
In September 2006 the technology future for Russia was focused on four elements:

»     Serial construction of AES-2006 units, with increased service life to 60 years,
»     Fast breeder BN-800,
»     Small and medium reactors – KLT-40 and VBER-300,
»     HTR.

VVER-1000, AES-92
The main reactor design being deployed until now has been the V-320 version of the VVER-1000 pressurised water reactor, with 950-1000 MWe net output, as the heart of what became the AES-92 power plant. It is from OKB Gidropress, has 30-year basic design life and dates from the 1980s. Advanced versions of this with western instrument and control systems have been built at Tianwan in China and are being built at Kudankulam in India, with 40-year design life.

VVER-1200, AES-2006
Development of a third-generation standardised VVER-1200 reactor of 1170 MWe net followed, as the basis of the AES-2006 power plant. This is an evolutionary development of the well-proven VVER-1000/V-320 and then the Generation III V-392 in the AES-92 plant, with longer life (50 years and aiming for 60), greater power, and greater thermal efficiency (36.56% instead of 31.6%). The lead units are being built at Novovoronezh II, to start operation in 2012-13, and at Leningrad II for 2013-14.

A typical AES-2006 plant will be a twin set-up with two of these OKB Gidropress reactor units expected to run for 50 years with capacity factor of 90%. Construction time is quoted as 54 months. They have enhanced safety including that related to earthquakes and aircraft impact with some passive safety features, double containment and lower core damage frequency. In Europe the basic technology is being called the Europe-tailored reactor design, MIR-1200 (Modernized International Reactor), and bid for Temelin 3 & 4, Turkey and Finland.

A Generation IV Gidropress project is the supercritical VVER (VVER-SKD or VVER-SCWR) with higher thermodynamic efficiency (45%) and higher breeding ratio (0.95) and oriented towards the closed fuel cycle.

VBER-300
OKBM Afrikantov’s VBER-300 PWR is a 295 MWe unit developed from naval power plants and was originally envisaged in pairs as a floating nuclear power plant. As a cogeneration plant it is rated at 200 MWe and 1900 GJ/hr for heat or desalination. The reactor is designed for 60 year life and 90% capacity factor. It was planned to develop it as a land-based unit with Kazatomprom, with a view to exports, but this agreement has stalled. There is support for two demonstration units at Zheleznogorsk for the Mining & Chemical Combine (MMC).

VK-300 BWR
The VK-300 boiling water reactor is being developed by the Research & Development Institute of Power Engineering (NIKIET) for both power (250 MWe) and desalination (150 MWe plus 1675 GJ/hr). It has evolved from the VK-50 experimental BWR at Dimitrovgrad, but uses standard components wherever possible, eg the reactor vessel of the VVER-1000. A feasibility study on building 4 cogeneration VK-300 units at Archangelsk was favourable, delivering 250 MWe power and 31.5 TJ/yr heat.

RBMK / MKER
A development of the RBMK was the MKER-800, with much improved safety systems and containment, but this thas been shelved. Like the RBMK itself, it was designed by VNIPIET (All-Russia Science Research and Design Institute of Power Engineering Technology) at St Petersburg.

HTRs
In the 1970-80s OKBM undertook substantial research on high temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTRs). In the 1990s it took a lead role in the international GT-MHR (Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactor) project based on a General Atomics (US) design. Preliminary design was completed in 2001 and the prototype was to be constructed at Seversk (Tomsk-7, Siberian Chemical Combine) by 2010, with construction of the first 4-module power plant (4×285 MWe) by 2015. Initially it will be used to burn pure ex-weapons plutonium, and replace production reactors which still supply electricity there. But in the longer-term perspective HTRs are seen as important for burning actinides, and later for hydrogen production.

Improving reactor performance
A major recent emphasis has been the improvement in operation of present reactors with better fuels and greater efficiency in their use, closing much of the gap between Western and Russian performance. Fuel developments include the use of burnable poisons – gadolinium and erbium, as well as structural changes to the fuel assemblies.

With uranium-gadolinium fuel and structural changes, VVER-1000 fuel has been pushed out to 4-year endurance, and VVER-440 fuel even longer. For VVER-1000, five years is envisaged by 2010, with enrichment levels increasing nearly by one third (from 3.77% to 4.87%) in that time, average burn-up going up by 40% (to 57.7 GWd/t) and operating costs dropping by 5%. With a 3 x 18 month operating cycle, burn-up would be lower (51.3 GWd/t) but load factor could increase to 87%. Comparable improvements were envisaged for later-model
VVER-440 units.

For RBMK reactors the most important development has been the introduction of uranium-erbium fuel at all units, though structural changes have helped. As enrichment and erbium content are increased (eg from 2.4 or 2.6% to 2.8% enrichment and 0.6% erbium) increased burn-up is possible and the fuel can stay in the reactor six years. Also from 2009 the enrichment is profiled along the fuel elements, with 3.2% in the central section and 2.5% in the upper and lower parts. This better utilises uranium resources and further extends fuel life in the core.

For the BN-600 fast reactor, improved fuel means up to 560 days between refuelling.

Beyond these initiatives, the basic requirements for fuel have been set as: fuel operational lifetime extended to 6 years, improved burn-up of 70 GWd/tU, and improved fuel reliability. In addition, many nuclear plants will need to be used in load-following mode, and fuel which performs well under variable load conditions will be required.

All RBMK reactors now use recycled uranium from VVER reactors and some has also been used experimentally at Kalinin-2 and Kola-2 VVERs. It is intended to extend this. A related project has been to utilise surplus weapons-grade plutonium in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for up to seven VVER-1000 reactors from 2008, and the one fast reactor (Beloyarsk-3) from 2007.

Energy Efficiency in Russia – Cogeneration for the New Generation

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

1. Introduction
In an increasingly energy constrained world, energy efficiency is not simply a matter of good practise but also an element of fundamental competitiveness and an economic necessity. In the basic tool kit of energy efficiency techniques cogeneration is a high efficiency approach to energy transformation: generating both heat and electricity with an overall efficiency of primary energy use of 80-90%. It is a concept which continues to attract innovation and find application in new sectors and capacities. In the near term it is a technology which has a great deal to offer in meeting the energy and climate challenges of the 21st century, modernising the concepts of electricity and heat supply with high efficiency and appropriate solutions for an increasing variety of customers.

Cogeneration (also known as CHP or Combined Heat and Power) is the simultaneous production of heat and electricity. The technology for cogenerating heat and electricity is mature and widely used with 11% of the European Union’s electricity being produced in cogeneration plants raising the overall efficiency of electricity production above that of the historical condensing power station approach.

Cogeneration is currently used in industry, agriculture, domestic and commercial energy supply and spans applications with capacities ranging from 1kW to hundreds of MW. It is a highly efficient energy solution that delivers substantial reductions in CO2 emissions. Cogeneration units can be found in different sizes and applications: from micro CHP (family houses), small-scale cogeneration (hospitals, schools, swimming pools and hotels) to large-scale industrial applications and district heating schemes.
Cogeneration drastically reduces this waste of energy traditionally associated with generating electricity in a condensing process by deliberately placing the generation process in locations where the heat from the electricity production can be used. Cogeneration is a heat led concept in the sense that the plant is located at the site of the heat demand to maximise the use of the heat, and electricity is generated according to the heat load available. The electricity is sometimes referred to as a by-product. By converting the energy close to the consumer of heat and power, energy losses both of heat and of electricity (low transmission losses for both heat and electricity) are minimised.

The diagram on the previous pagecompares the production of heat and electricity in cogeneration to separate production of heat (in the boiler) and electricity (in the condensing power station). In the upper half of the diagram the cogeneration unit has an efficiency of 89%. In the case of separate production far more fuel is needed because of the high losses in the power station and additional losses in the electricity network and in the boiler.

Cogeneration can be applied in all cases where electricity is produced by thermal combustion, and can be based on all combustible fuel types, whether fossil or renewable. By analysing the consumption patterns of individual heat users, cogeneration schemes can be optimised to supply specific needs, with maximum overall efficiency.

2. Technologies
Engines
Most small-scale cogeneration units are internal combustion engines operating on the same familiar principles as their petrol and diesel automotive counterparts. Engines run with liquid or gaseous fuels, such as heating oil, natural gas or biogas, and are available from 1 kWe to more than 1,000 kWe. Internal combustion engines have a higher electrical efficiency than turbines, but the thermal energy they produce is generally at lower temperatures and so they are highly suited to buildings applications. The usable heat to power ratio is normally in the range 1:1 to 2:1.

For very small-scale applications with a capacity between 0.2 kWe and 9 kWe, Stirling engines can be used. These engines are external combustion devices and therefore differ substantially from the conventional models. The Stirling engine has fewer moving parts than conventional engines, and no valves, tappets, fuel injectors or spark ignition systems. It is therefore quieter than normal engines. Stirling engines also require little maintenance and the emission of pollutants is low.

Gas turbines
Gas turbines have become the most widely used prime mover for large-scale cogeneration in recent years. The waste gases exhausted from the turbine have a temperature of 450°C to 550°C, making the gas turbine particularly suitable for steam supply. Gas turbines are not only used in large-scale applications; smaller units starting at around 400 kWe are available on the market.

Since the late 1990s microturbines have become available. They are derived from automotive turbo-chargers and are available from 30 kWe to around 250 kWe. Microturbines use less space than conventional engines and maintenance costs are lower.  Moreover, the emission of pollutant gases is reduced, especially those gases that cause acid rain and ozone layer depletion. Electrical efficiencies are typically lower than in internal combustion engines.

Steam turbines
Steam turbines have been used as prime movers for large-scale cogeneration systems for many years. Typically, steam turbines are associated with larger power stations but also smaller units starting with 200 kWe are frequently used. The overall efficiency generally is very high, achieving up to 84%. Steam turbines run with solid, liquid or gaseous fuels, both fossil and renewable. The typical heat:power ratio of steam turbines is around 6:1.

Fuel cells
A new technology in the sector is the development of fuel cells for cogeneration. Fuel cells convert the chemical energy of hydrogen and oxygen directly into electricity without combustion and mechanical work such as in turbines or engines. The hydrogen is usually produced from natural gas by a process known as reforming. The total efficiencies of cogeneration systems reach 85 to 90%, while the heat to power ratio is in the range 5:4. Fuel cells with a capacity of 1 kWe provide heat and power to single family houses, whereas bigger applications of around 300 kWe can be used in commercial applications and hospitals.

Heating and cooling
Thermal cooling, incorporated in a trigeneration plant, is an area of current development and deployment of systems. The usage of waste heat from (micro) cogeneration systems or district heating systems leads to an increase of efficiency and profitability of these innovative systems especially in the summer periods.

There are two basic types of thermal chillers: absorption and adsorption chillers. For an absorption process a liquid sorption medium and for an adsorption process a solid sorption medium is used. The following technologies are available for thermal chillers at present:

  • Water / lithium bromide – absorption chillers
  • Ammonia / water – absorption chillers
  • Water / silica gel – adsorption chillers
  • Desiccant-Evaporative Cooling (DEC)
  • - open adsorption process

These technologies differ in available cooling output, required thermal input and hot water inlet temperature and heat efficiencies of condensation (coefficients of performance, COP) which means the ratio of cooling output to thermal input.

3. The position of cogeneration in Russia today
In Russia about 30% of heat is produced by cogeneration plants. Heat-only-boilers account for about 45% of total heat produced and decentralised sources (industrial or own-producers) account for the remaining share of heat produced. Russian industry is highly energy intensive. In 2007, the industrial sector accounted for 50% of total electricity demand, a higher share than most other countries. Given its suitability for energy intensive applications, just over half of Russia’s 500 cogeneration plants are based within the industrial sector. Together, the iron and steel sector (30%) and the chemical and petrochemical sector (21%) accounted for over half the industrial heat consumption in Russia in 2007. Many major cities in Russia are centred on or close to a major industry and thus the heat from the industrial cogeneration supply can further be used for the lower temperature heat demand of district heating systems for the residential sector.

Russia has the world’s largest collection of district heating systems by far, with heat deliveries of about 1,700 TWh in 2007, almost 10 times more than the next largest system Ukraine (with a level just under 200 TWh) and Poland (just under 100 TWh in 2007). Just under three-quarters (74%) of space heat in buildings supplied in Russia is through district heating networks with the other quarter of the heat supplied by decentralised/individual heat sources. A large potential exists for energy savings in Russia’s district heating systems, especially through the reduction of losses from the distribution network and the implementation of energy efficiency measures. Given an estimated 20-30% of heat is lost through the heat distribution network before it reaches the end consumer, focus on reducing these network losses will be an essential first step. Only after this stage is completed will the installation of meters and heat-regulating devices in buildings to allow for demand-side management be effective.

Russia is in a strong position to take advantage of the high efficiency of modern cogeneration should it choose to do so. Many industries (particularly refining, paper production and chemicals) use cogeneration as key element of their competitiveness worldwide. Lighter industry (such as the food sector, process industries and greenhouse agriculture) are increasingly moving to adopt cogeneration as new sectors discover the benefits of the by-product of electricity from heat. A typical industrial application would be the Spanish ceramics factory pictured in figure 1 where a modern tiles and ceramics factory of 100,000 m2 uses a Centrax high efficiency cogeneration turbine plant to provide heat to its modern clay atomiser and to generate 3.7 MWe of electricity, or in Heineken’s plant at Zoeterwoude in the Netherlands where cogeneration is used in brewing process (see figure 2).

Growth worldwide in cogeneration is stimulated by new low carbon fuel types with considerable interest in waste to energy plants in certain countries and increasing interest in the use of cogeneration to maximise the primary energy efficiency of bio-energy plants. Denmark which, like Russia has an extensive district heating network is currently reporting an average primary energy saving (PES) of 25% compared to separate production of heat and electricity from the modern cogeneration technology installed in the recent period. Denmark has always made energy efficiency a principle element of their energy policy and  made a deliberate choice to incorporate cogeneration into district heating networks to replace heat only distribution, thus introducing new electricity generation capacity, without expansive new build.

Mytishi Teploset, the district heating company of the Moscow suburb of Mytishi, engaged in an extensive program for the reconstruction and development of some of its district heating networks (2004-2008). The project comprised the reconstruction of 200 building substations and 120 km of double pipes to be replaced with pre-insulated pipes. The project was part of a major modernisation and new construction of the district heating systems in the region of Mytishi. The refurbishment of the heat network of the Mytishi led to the reduction of heat losses from 30% to only 12%. The project was funded using a World Bank loan of 600,000 USD from the World Bank.

4. European developments
The European Union is currently aiming to expand the contribution of cogeneration to the heat and electricity supply. There are lessons to be learned from this process. The EU produced the Cogeneration Directive 2004/08/EC to promote cogeneration in its territory. The Directive has been most successful in establishing a uniform definition for cogeneration requiring a certain level of energy efficiency before a plant is recognised as cogeneration. It has also set in place a review of the potential for cogeneration which is a necessary first step for many EU Member States, unfamiliar with the technology, to begin to assess how it might be applied. However, the reporting under the Directive has revealed many remaining barriers to the wider use of cogeneration. Firstly, the current volatility of energy prices plus the changing nature of pricing and subsidy of the energy and electricity market, makes it a difficult new business area to step into with confidence especially if you are a small player. Secondly but secondly but also crucially, crucially there are many barriers to connection for smaller cogeneration units trying to connect for the first time, largely arising from the novelty of the request and the competitive nature of the request.

The European lessons suggest that the correct supportive policy around grid connection and market access is necessary to promote cogeneration. Considering planned investment in industry and the large heat networks in place, the challenge in Russia will certainly include access to capital. However, to truly take advantage of cogeneration attention should also be given to encouraging new entrants at the medium-small scale and to creating a policy structure to support this. Observers in Europe are also beginning to comment on the need for energy strategy, particularly heat strategy, covering not just the near but also the long term in order to identify the correct infrastructure investments.

5. Conclusions
The International Energy Agency (IEA) began to report on cogeneration and district heating in 2007 as part of its responsibilities under the G8’s request to identify climate change mitigation actions. The IEA carried out a particular study on the Russian situation (IEA country profile: Russia, IEA DHC, www.ies-dhc.org) and makes several recommendations for the development of cogeneration and district heating.

Heat tariffs should be cost-reflective. As with electricity, heat tariffs should cover the full costs of heat production in order to maintain the longer term viability of the system. Ideally, before heat tariffs are increased, priority should be given to installing meters and heat regulating devices to allow consumers the ability to regulate their consumption.
Were the Mytishi renewal project to be extrapolated across the whole of Russia, this would equal a savings of almost 20% in input fuel to the heat sector or 30 bcm of natural gas. This type of saving could be used to offset the price of heat to appropriate customers in the transition period to cost-covering levels of heat tariffs.

Higher heat tariffs would help to cover maintenance costs necessary to allow for adequate refurbishment of heat supply networks across Russia’s district heating systems. As the maintenance of the systems improve, the overall efficiency of the system would improve with significant saving in heat losses.

Cogeneration both in terms of residential and industrial applications benefits from a medium and long term planning. The strategy should include medium to long term stable energy policy and widespread, stable financial and fiscal support for district heating system investments that reflect the full value of the long-term environmental and economic benefits. For example, grants, low interest loans, accelerated depreciation and tax exemptions can be used to assist potential investors in overcoming the additional up-front costs for investment. All these topics will be covered in a dedicated session on financing of cogeneration at the upcoming COGEN Europe and Euroheat & Power Joint Annual Conference “Teaming up for energy renewal – cogeneration and district heating” in Brussels on 2 June 2010 (www.conference2010.eu).

The existing infrastructure and the historic planning of industry with urban areas give Russia a unique opportunity to use modern cogeneration to maximise the efficiency of future electricity production. As the sector mobilises to accommodate new fuel types, new capacities and new applications the advantages both economically and socially of cogeneration for Russia would seem to be substantial.

Welcome

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Welcome to the brand new Powertec Russia Blog. Your number one publication for the Power Generation and Technology Industry for Russia and the CIS





  • Blog Archives
  • Categories
  • rogtec
    Tel: +350 2162 4000    Fax:+350 2162 4001
    PowerTec Magazine © 2009/2012 - All rights Reserved | Legal Disclaimer
    Website design and development by Saul Haslam and DTimagen - SEO by Solar Internet Specialists in SEO Spain