Power Generation Technologies, Trends, and Influencesc.ymcdn.com/sites/ · David W. Gandy Technical Executive, Nuclear Electric Power Research Institute Valve and Actuator Trends

David W. Gandy

Technical Executive, Nuclear

Electric Power Research Institute

Valve and Actuator Trends

for the Power Industry

March 7, 2013

Power Generation Technologies,

Trends, and Influences

2 © 2012 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Presentation Outline

• Current Electricity Generation Trends

• Transformation of the Electricity System

• Scenarios Impacting the Electricity Portfolio thru 2050

• Materials Requirements & Needs

• Research in Materials Technologies at EPRI

• Materials Research for Valves at EPRI


Electricity Generation

--Coal

• 38% of electricity generated in USA

uses coal as fuel source (down from 50%)

• Abundant domestic energy resource

– 25% of world’s total coal reserves (275 billion tons)

• Expected to comprise 35% of the national fuel mix in 2040

• Significant improvements realized in pre- and post-

combustion emission reduction technology

Major Challenges: Uncertainty associated with

environmental regulations & future CO2 emission limits;

CO2 capture & storage technologies



--Natural Gas

• 29% of total current generation

is NG-based

• Expected to comprise 30% of national fuel mix in 2040

• Low emissions

• Low capital costs and regulatory barriers for other fuels

make natural gas-based generation easier to site and build

• New sources of natural gas—such as shale gas—are

transforming the market

• Low prices currently

Major Challenges: Environmental concerns with

shale fracking & gas distribution



--Nuclear

• 104 nuclear power plants in the

USA provide 20% of the nation’s electricity

• Expected to comprise 17% of national fuel mix in 2040

• Largest non-emitting generation source

• Uranium is plentiful and efficient.

• Nuclear power plant performance continues to improve

Major Challenges: High construction costs and used fuel

disposal; safety concerns following Fukushima accident



--Renewables (including Hydro)

• Hydro comprises 7% of USA generation

• Wind makes up 3%, while solar and biomass

make up only a fraction of the generation

• Wind -- Tremendous growth in last few years –

~52 GW installed through 2012

• Wind generation can change rapidly,

presenting challenges to the power system

• Renewables projected at 16% by 2040

Major Challenges: Storage & integration of

variable generation.


Where Does Our Electricity Come From?

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration Power Monthly

Nov 2011-Oct 2012 Electric Sector Generation

38.3%

29.2%

20.0%

7.1%

4.7% 0.5% 0.2%

Coal

Gas

Nuclear

Hydro

Renewables

Oil

Other


Which Plants are Used the Most Today?

2010


Different Fuel Mixes Used Across US

Source: US DOE Information Administration (EIA-923)--2010


How Many Plants Does it Take to Power a City?

Nuclear

1 2 Solar

Photovoltaic Wind Turbines Geothermal Biomass

Natural Gas Coal

1.6 Million 2,000 30 20

3

= =

= = =

Annual electricity consumption for 1 million homes (based on average

annual household consumption of 12,000 kilowatt hours)


Transformation of Electricity System

• Transformation will take time!!!

– Existing infrastructure built over several decades

• Significant uncertainty

– Lack of coherent Energy Policy in USA…..

– Environmental regulations?

– Climate policy?

– Renewable energy standards?

– Fuel prices?

– Investment in new plants?

• Challenge: Providing clean, reliable, & affordable energy.


National Generation Mix:

Portfolios Examined

Limited Portfolio

• Nuclear generation does not

expand

• No CO2 capture and storage

(CCS)

• Natural Gas based on AEO 2010

Full Portfolio

• New Nuclear, plus 80% of

existing capacity can extend to

80 years

• Coal w/ 90% Carbon Capture &

Storage

• Natural Gas based on AEO 2010

• Inter-Regional Transmission new

builds

• Renewables costs decline faster

& improved performance


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Limited Portfolio Full Portfolio


Reference Scenario (Today’s policy)

TW

h

Existing Coal

New Coal

Gas

Existing Nuclear

Hydro+

Wind

Solar Energy Efficiency

& Price Response*

Geothermal

Biomass

New Nuclear

AEO 2010

Baseline

* Above the black line reflects embedded EE in the AEO 2010 Reference Case

Gas

Existing Nuclear

New Coal


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


CO2 Controls (80% CO2 Reduction by 2050)


TW

h

Existing Coal

New Coal

Gas

Existing Nuclear

Hydro+

Wind

Solar

Energy Efficiency

& Price Response*

Biomass

Gas w/CCS

New Nuclear

New Coal w/CCS

CCS Retrofit

Geothermal

AEO 2010

Baseline



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050


Clean Energy Standard


TW

h

Existing Coal

New Coal

Gas

Existing Nuclear

Hydro+

Wind

Solar

Energy Efficiency

& Price Response*

Biomass

New Nuclear

New Coal

w/CCS

CCS Retrofit

Geothermal

AEO 2010

Baseline



How Do We Achieve the Full Portfolio?

Advanced Materials Technologies

will certainly be an integral part of it!


Materials Requirements & Needs

--Ultra-Supercritical Coal Technologies

Increased Efficiency Reduced Emissions


A progressive increase in steam conditions

has been taking place worldwide

2400/1005/1005

Imp

rove

me

nt

in E

ne

rgy E

ffic

ien

cy

Mature technology

Cu

rre

nt

Ma

rke

t

intr

od

ucti

on

US

Cu

rre

nt

Ma

rke

t

intr

od

ucti

on

by J

ap

an

an

d E

uro

pe (

Ste

el R

&D

)

R&D ongoing

Europe, Japan,

U.S.

(Ni-based

Materials)

US A-USC Goal

1950’s 1960’s 1970’s 1980’s 1990’s 2000’s 2010’s

Original Illustration:

Courtesy of ALSTOM Power

3480 psi / 1005oF / 1050oF

3600/1050/1085

4000/1085/1100

4000/1100/1130

4000/1165/1200

5400/1300/1325/1325

Cost Effective Materials Have Been Critical

to Achieving Increased Efficiency

5400/1350/1400


U.S. DOE/OCDO: A-Ultra-Supercritical Steam Boiler Consortium—Phase I

2: Material Properties

3: Steamside Oxidation

4: Fireside Corrosion

5: Welding

6: Fabricability

7: Coatings

8: Design Data & Rules

(including Code

interface)

1: Conceptual Design

Develop the materials technology to fabricate and operate an A-USC steam boiler with

steam parameters up to 1400°F (760°C)

http://www.fwc.com/

http://www.alstom.com/

http://www.netl.doe.gov/main.html


DOE/OCDO A-USC Steam Turbine Consortium

--Phase II

Tasks

1.Rotor/Disc Testing (near full-size forgings)

2.Blade/Airfoil Alloy Testing

3.Valve Internals Alloy Testing

4.Rotor Alloy Welding and Characterization

5.Cast Casing Alloy Testing

6.Casing Welding and Repair

http://www.netl.doe.gov/main.html


Materials Research at EPRI

-- Ultra-Supercritical Coal Technologies

Powder Metallurgy to

Produce Valves, Pump

Housings, Elbows, etc

Advanced Austenitic Alloys Improved Life

Prediction Technologies


Ultra-Supercritical Coal Technologies

--Materials Needs

• Large castings

– Nickel-based turbine shells

– Stop & control valves

– Other valve bodies & pump housings

• Large forgings

– Nickel-based rotors & discs (large diameter)

• Austenitic extruded pipe & headers

– Nickel-based (eg., IN740 & 282)

– Creep resistant stainless steels


South Texas Project, NINA/NRG

2-ABWR (2,700 MW)

Alternate Energy Holdings

1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Blue Castle, TP

1-Unspecified Technology

Amarillo, UNE

2-USEPR (3,200 MW)

Callaway, AEE

1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Fermi, DTE

1-ESBWR (1,550 MW)

Comanche Peak, LUM/TXU

2-USAPWR (3,400 MW)

Victoria, EXE

2-ABWR (2,700 MW) *

Grand Gulf, NS/ETR


River Bend, ETR


Turkey Point, FPL

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Levy County, PGN

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Alvin W. Vogtle, SO

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Summer, SCG

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Lee Station, DUK

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Harris, PGN

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Nine Mile Point, UNE

1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Bell Bend/PPL, UNE

1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

North Anna, D


Calvert Cliffs, UNE

1-USEPR (1,600 MW)

Bellefonte, NS/TVA

2-AP1000 (2,200 MW)

Source: NRC Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications (July 2009) / U.S DOE Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard * COLA Amended to ESP

Announced Intentions to File COLA

Filed COLA/ESP

COLA Review Suspended / Partially Suspended

PSE&G


New Nuclear Plants Under Consideration in U.S.

COLA approved for issuance


Materials Research at EPRI

-- Nuclear

• Improved SCC-resistant alloys over

Alloy 52 and 690

• Co-free hardfacing alloys for valves &

blades (reduced radiation exposure)

• Powder metallurgy/HIP – improved

chemistries & inspection

• Joining for large sections


Nuclear

--Materials Needs

• Large Forgings

– Reactor pressure vessel plate &

nozzles (w/ controlled segregation)

– Improved forging quality-Boiling

Water Reactor (BWR) Core

Shrouds

– Nickel-based rotors & discs (large

diameter)

– Small Modular Reactors

• Large Extruded Pipe w/ improved

corrosion resistance

Courtesy: Omaha Public Power District


Valves

• Fossil Valve Issues

– Grade 91 – lack of controls on both repairs & heat treatment of castings

– Hard-facing delamination due to cycling

• Ultra-supercritical Valve Issues

– No air-casting methods for large turbine shells & stop/control valves

• Nuclear Valve Issues

– Inspection of castings (porosity, segregation, grain size variance, etc)

– No definitive inspection method

– NRC pushing to improve inspection of cast components


316L Stainless Steel

--Powder Metallurgy/HIP

2011

2010

2011

500X

• Good tensile/yield properties

• Charpy Impact: >122 ft-lbs (3 orientations)

• No Porosity, homogenous microstructures

• Good Fatigue properties

• Inspection, near forging quality

ASME Code Case & NRC

Review—submitted 11/2011

courtesy Rolls-Royce


Grade 91 (9Cr-1Mo steel)

--Powder Metallurgy/HIP

• Good tensile/yield/creep properties

• Charpy Impact: >78 ft-lbs (3 orientations)

• No Porosity, homogenous microstructures

• Inspection, near forging quality

ASME Code Case & Data Pkg—

submitted 11/2012

2011

500X


Erosion-Resistant Hard-facing

Alloy Development

P/M-HIP parts and

tests specimens

Alloy modeling &

development


Summary

• No one technology, fuel or resource is the “right choice.”

• A range of generation options produces the least cost and impact on economy.

• Existing generation will take time and significant investment to replace & upgrade.

• Advances in technologies will require new alloys, improved materials processes, re-investment in forging capabilities.


Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity

Power Generation Technologies, Trends, and Influencesc.ymcdn.com/sites/ · David W. Gandy Technical Executive, Nuclear Electric Power Research Institute Valve and Actuator Trends

Documents