Well, I'm enjoying the relative serenity over here so far, away from the swarming wasps in The Other Place who come out en masse ready to drive off any dissenting opinions, just stinging away without providing any logical counter-argument . Hope it continues. It occurs to me there are two separate topics of possible further interest. First is whether the choice of RICE over GTs [I'll continue to call them GTs because that is the common term in the power industry here] is likely to be correct. As I've said, it's always been a theoretical discussion here on HC. It would be completely absurd to think that any Company is likely to say "hey, hang on a minute, perhaps we should listen to those old codgers on HC who reckon GTs might be the way to go, ditch all these arrangements we've already got and go find some". Never going to happen, no matter how convincing the argument. The second possible topic would be whether it is likely a peaking power plant is likely to remain profitable and viable throughout the 24 years of its projected working life, despite any and all possible future technological, social and environmental changes. That's a very large topic with too many 'unknown unknowns'. It's not a topic that is of immediate interest to me but debate away - this is the place. I am going to debate Schmeida, author of the "Midwest" article above, in her absence, regarding her rather pessimistic views on GT starting, operational time to readiness, part power functionality and what happens when GTs are cycled quickly. I'll just say her views are not the experience of the aviation industry where GTs are powered up, on approach say, after an idle descent, operated at highly variable part thrust at low altitude, pulled back to idle on touchdown and then powered up again to high power for stopping in 'reverse'. Reverse by the way does not mean the engine rotates backwards. It means some of the air stream from the engine is diverted forwards, or as far forward as is reasonably possible to assist the brakes and other stopping devices. Aviation turbines get handled like this day in day out without adverse consequences. No obvious reason that a derivative GT can't do the same. I agree with you JL. It's all a bit of a non-event. Perhaps Schmeida's experience is with other less flexible turbines? I need to unpack my earlier point about reliability a little further. Certainly a power station isn't in any physical danger if an engine fails to function, unlike an aircraft. But STX is being paid quite a handsome retainer per annum for availability and so you'd have to expect that in return the plant would have to actually turn up on the SWIS when requested or start paying penalties. Maximum reliability would definitely be very desirable too in Schmeida's example ,where a single GT was the preferred solution. The other thing about reliability is that when something breaks, somebody has to drive out to site to take it apart and fix it or change it. I note that Jenbacher's 20 RICEs, quoted for the job at 4.5MW each, sums to 90MW of power, so they have, wisely in my view, allowed for one of the twenty to be unavailable at any one time while still maintaining 85 MW availability. If you look closely at Schmeida's article she sets out in some detail all the ongoing maintenance requirements of big RICE engines and costs them, then does the same for GTs. GT wins hands down. I'm not even sure you'd even need to check the balance periodically on modern GTs, as she claims. Aircraft GTs are instrumented like race cars and are constantly being monitored from the ground, as necessary, by telemetry in almost real time. Actual vibration levels are always available remotely. [Ask me how I know]. Pretty sure aeroderivatives would be the same. JL I have to debate your comment above about frequency stabilisation. Yes they do! [even without using flywheels ]. Check out this info from GE. I keep going to GE for info because they pretty much dominate the power generation industry. To put that in perspective, GE have more GT power generation installed just in the State of NSW than Jenbacher have in the whole world! Having personally operated large GTs manufactured by Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce as well as GE, I can see why they are the industry choice. Anyway, frequency stabilisation. Check out this web page. The short embedded video is also worth a look:
]. Check out this info from GE. I keep going to GE for info because they pretty much dominate the power generation industry. To put that in perspective, GE have more GT power generation installed just in the State of NSW than Jenbacher have in the whole world! Having personally operated large GTs manufactured by Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce as well as GE, I can see why they are the industry choice.
