https://www.power-eng.com/gas/mid-sized-new-generation-reciprocating-internal-combustion-engines-or-combustion-turbine/
H;, IW.
This is another most interesting article by Power.
It compares the two types of generating plants in an holistic way.
I hope STX consultants have done similar.This article compares reciprocating engines to simple cycle combustion turbines for a nominal 50 MW gas-fired plant in the Midwest, connected to the electric grid.
They ruled out combined cycle due to its preference to run continuously and compared reciprocating engines to simple cycle combustion turbines for a nominal 50 MW gas-fired plant connected to the grid.
An enormous amount of engineering technology was applied and explained.
What interested me was the operational aspects of the plant in optimising the economic and technical solution.
RICE efficiency remains steady throughout the load range, whereas CT efficiency decreases at reduced loads. The load range is broader for RICE than CT, both for a single unit, as well as for the total facility due to multiple smaller machines instead of one larger machine.
Number and size of units would appear be an important consideration in optimising loading.
Reciprocating engines are also able to start-up and reach full load capacity more quickly, and can withstand dramatic changes in load and many starts and stops with minimal impacts to the equipment and maintenance cycles.
In STX's case, I don't think that it is an overriding factor the comparison.
All this response to start up and loading is a little overstated. For comparative means anyway.
many regional organizations have excellent peak prediction tools. This information allows operators to make informed decisions regarding start-up and run time for their CT plants, reducing concerns about response time and cycling operation, as they can choose to respond only to longer duration peaks.
That is what I expect to happen in WA.
There are so many companies wanting "peaking rights", I do not consider them to be peaking plants at all, but a gaggle of small power stations feeding the grid with an allocated amount of energy at a given time for a given time.
And depending on where the energy is needed to be directed.
They are not for frequency stabilization. They have no control over the grid stability; that's done by the big power stations which have momentum and inertia and can easily iron out load swings and maintain steady frequency.
You could not them vary their output at will. They will be tightly constrained by grid control.
I think in STX's case either would perform adequately, but I think an holistic approach should be adopted, and the most economical solution be adopted.
For a mid-sized generating facility, approximately 50-MW, either RICE or CT technology can be the “right” choice depending on the specific attributes of the project. Conventional wisdom exists for a reason, and often points to the best fit solution. However, like our example facility, care needs to be taken to account for many competing factors before making a final selection, some of which have been discussed in this paper, and others that may be completely unique to an owner/developer or to a specific site. With proper diligence, the proper selection emerges.
I have rambled on a bit, but it is an interesting topic. J L.
