WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS - Cd3wd

WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS - Cd3wd WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS - Cd3wd

www4.zetatalk.com
from www4.zetatalk.com More from this publisher
19.06.2015 Views

Chapter 7—Asynchronous Loads 7–39 (3.23 to 3.52 MJ/MJ). There are new types of fossil fueled generating plants being developed which use systems like magnetohydrodynamics and combined cycles to get the heat rate down to 8000 Btu/kWh (2.35 MJ/MJ) or less. The cost of fuel per kWh can be defined as C fuel = C MB (heat rate) (23) where CMB is in dollars per million Btu and the heat rate is in million Btu per kWh generated. Example The cost of coal delivered to a plant in Kansas is $0.71/106 Btu in 1981 dollars. The heat rate is 9800 Btu/kWh. What is the fuel cost per kWh? C fuel =($0.71/10 6 Btu)(0.0098 × 10 6 Btu/kWh) = $0.0070/kWh Example The cost of residual low sulfur fuel oil delivered to a municipal generating plant in 1981 is $8.26/106 Btu. The heat rate is 11,000 Btu/kWh. What is the fuel cost? C fuel =($8.26/10 6 Btu)(0.011 × 10 6 Btu/kWh) = $0.0909/kWh Numbers such as shown in these examples are obsolete as soon as they are written, but they do illustrate the fact that oil fired electricity costs considerably more than coal fired electricity. This means that wind machines will probably be used to save oil before they can be justified to replace new coal generation. We should mention that relatively large amounts of oil and natural gas are used as boiler fuels by the utilities. In 1977, 90.3 × 10 9 m 3 of natural gas and 574.9 million barrels of oil were burned as boiler fuels[16]. Fossil fuels were used to generate 1, 648.7 × 10 9 kWh, with coal contributing 60 percent of the total, gas 19 percent, and oil 21 percent. The average power from the oil and gas fired units was 75,000 MW. It is national policy to replace this oil and gas fired electricity with electricity generated from coal and nuclear plants. However, political, environmental, and economic problems are delaying this transition. It appears that significant quantities of oil and gas will be used for boiler fuel for some time. It seems logical that wind generated electricity would be used first as a fuel saver, so that less oil and gas would be burned when the wind is blowing. This eliminates the extra expenses for storage equipment and results in minimum cost to the electricity customer. The major technical limitation is the capacity of existing transmission lines. That is, a region of the country with 10,000 MW of oil and gas generation may only have 1000 MW of transmission line capacity which could be used to move wind generated electricity into the region. Additional Wind Energy Systems by Dr. Gary L. Johnson November 21, 2001

Chapter 7—Asynchronous Loads 7–40 transmission lines may be almost as politically and economically difficult to build as new coal generating plants within the region. This means that while at least 75,000 MW of wind generation could be utilized nationally in a fuel saver mode if transmission lines were adequate, perhaps only 10,000 to 20,000 MW could actually be utilized in this mode if electrical power had to be transmitted over existing transmission lines. This limitation would not be present if the wind generated electricity were used to make hydrogen, and the hydrogen shipped to the load centers by pipeline. There will need to be a cooperative effort to use wind and solar electric systems, hydroelectric systems, load management, conservation, and perhaps load leveling batteries to maximize the use of wind and solar systems as fuel savers. Electrolysis of water can logically begin after the use of oil and gas as boiler fuels has been reduced to an absolute minimum. Existing oil and gas generating plants can be maintained as standby units for emergency use. Of course, there may be special applications, such as off shore wind turbines, where electrolytic production of hydrogen could be justified more quickly than on shore. A great deal depends on the capital costs of wind turbines and electrolysis cells, as well as the cost and availability of fossil fuels. In any event, there will be interest in producing hydrogen from wind generated electricity, so a brief review of the technology is appropriate. 6 ELECTROLYSIS CELLS It has been known for at least 150 years that water can be decomposed into the elements hydrogen and oxygen by passing an electric current through it. Electrolysis cells are widely used to produce hydrogen in laboratory quantities or where a high purity is required. A simple electrolysis unit is shown in Fig. 14. There are two end plates and a bipolar plate in the middle, forming two cells. The electrolyte is distilled water with up to 25 percent of some alkaline added, such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), or lithium hydroxide (LiOH). An alkaline is used to produce a relatively low resistance in the electrolyte. Distilled water has a very high resistance, which causes unacceptably high losses if used by itself. Figure 14: Two electrolysis cells in series. Wind Energy Systems by Dr. Gary L. Johnson November 21, 2001

Chapter 7—Asynchronous Loads 7–39<br />

(3.23 to 3.52 MJ/MJ). There are new types of fossil fueled generating plants being developed<br />

which use systems like magnetohydrodynamics and combined cycles to get the heat rate down<br />

to 8000 Btu/kWh (2.35 MJ/MJ) or less.<br />

The cost of fuel per kWh can be defined as<br />

C fuel = C MB (heat rate) (23)<br />

where CMB is in dollars per million Btu and the heat rate is in million Btu per kWh generated.<br />

Example<br />

The cost of coal delivered to a plant in Kansas is $0.71/106 Btu in 1981 dollars. The heat rate is<br />

9800 Btu/kWh. What is the fuel cost per kWh?<br />

C fuel =($0.71/10 6 Btu)(0.0098 × 10 6 Btu/kWh) = $0.0070/kWh<br />

Example<br />

The cost of residual low sulfur fuel oil delivered to a municipal generating plant in 1981 is $8.26/106<br />

Btu. The heat rate is 11,000 Btu/kWh. What is the fuel cost?<br />

C fuel =($8.26/10 6<br />

Btu)(0.011 × 10 6 Btu/kWh) = $0.0909/kWh<br />

Numbers such as shown in these examples are obsolete as soon as they are written, but<br />

they do illustrate the fact that oil fired electricity costs considerably more than coal fired<br />

electricity. This means that wind machines will probably be used to save oil before they can<br />

be justified to replace new coal generation.<br />

We should mention that relatively large amounts of oil and natural gas are used as boiler<br />

fuels by the utilities. In 1977, 90.3 × 10 9 m 3 of natural gas and 574.9 million barrels of oil<br />

were burned as boiler fuels[16]. Fossil fuels were used to generate 1, 648.7 × 10 9 kWh, with<br />

coal contributing 60 percent of the total, gas 19 percent, and oil 21 percent. The average<br />

power from the oil and gas fired units was 75,000 MW.<br />

It is national policy to replace this oil and gas fired electricity with electricity generated<br />

from coal and nuclear plants. However, political, environmental, and economic problems are<br />

delaying this transition. It appears that significant quantities of oil and gas will be used for<br />

boiler fuel for some time.<br />

It seems logical that wind generated electricity would be used first as a fuel saver, so<br />

that less oil and gas would be burned when the wind is blowing. This eliminates the extra<br />

expenses for storage equipment and results in minimum cost to the electricity customer. The<br />

major technical limitation is the capacity of existing transmission lines. That is, a region of the<br />

country with 10,000 MW of oil and gas generation may only have 1000 MW of transmission line<br />

capacity which could be used to move wind generated electricity into the region. Additional<br />

Wind Energy Systems by Dr. Gary L. Johnson November 21, 2001

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!