powerengineering201501 dl

7/21/2019 Powerengineering201501 Dl

1/57


2/57


3/57

SOLVAir Solutions A great New Years resolution!

Solvay Chemicals, Inc.

1.800.SOLVAY C (800.765.8292)

www.solvair.us

Copyright 2015, Solvay Chemicals, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Air pollution control has been part of the Solvay lexicon for many years, and as SOLVAir Solutions,

we have long provided trona and sodium bicarbonate products to the environmental market.

We are ready for the challenges of the New Year!

Time is short for compliance with the latest regulations. But as the Resourcefor companies seeking

help with acid gas emissions, SOLVAir Solutions can help you buy time by taking advantage

of not only our products, but also the service, and the expertise in Dry Sorbent Injection systems,

that we offer.

With upcoming MATS/MACT, CSPAR and other proposed GHG regulations, knowledge andexperience are priorities when it comes to choosing a company dedicated to air pollution

control. With more than 25 years of experience, SOLVAir Solutions continues to look ahead

always towards the best, most cost-effective ways to help you achieve regulatory compliance.

Call us today at 800.765.8292. Well be here.

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#1
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=C2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=C2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solvair.us


4/57

FEATURES

32 The Western Grid Can WeatherDisturbances Under HighRenewable Penetrations

Learn how high penetrations of wind and solar energy helpthe Western Interconnection bridge the crucial first minute

following a grid disturbance.

37 Gas Turbine Air Filter System OptimizationProper air filtration is critical to the overall performance and reliability of gas

turbines. Explore the impacts that small gains in efficiency have on essential fil

parameters and their effects on gas turbine operations and maintenance.

44 The Use of NaturalVentilation for Power Plant

Power plants generate a lot of heat. Find out how nat

ventilation can remove that heat to optimize plant

equipment and safeguard employees.

ower Engineering

Power Engineering is the flagshmedia sponsor for

119VOLUME

POWER ENGINEERING ONLINE : www.power-eng.com

Newsletter:Stay current on industry news,events, features and more.

Newscast:A concise, weekly update of allthe top power generation news

Industry News:Global updatesthroughout the

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERSPennWell Corp.

4PVUI 4IFSJEBO 3PBE t 5VMTB 0, 10 #PY 5VMTB 0,

5FMFQIPOF t 'BY &NBJM QF!QFOOXFMMDPN

8PSME 8JEF 8FC IUUQXXXQPXFSFOHDPN

IEF EDITOR 3VTTFMM 3BZ

SVTTFMMS!QFOOXFMMDPN

SOCIATE EDITOR 4IBSSZO %PUTPO

TIBSSZOE!QFOOXFMMDPN

SOCIATE EDITOR 5JN .JTFS

UNJTFS!QFOOXFMMDPN

-LINE EDITOR +FOOJGFS 7BO #VSLMFP

KWBOCVSLMFP!QFOOXFMMDPN

NTRIBUTING EDITOR#SBE #VFDLFS

NTRIBUTING EDITOR#SJBO 4DIJNNPMMFS

NTRIBUTING EDITOR3PCZOO "OESBDTFL

NTRIBUTING EDITOR8BZOF #BSCFS

XBZOFC!QFOOXFMMDPN

NTRIBUTING EDITOR#BSSZ $BTTFMM

CBSSZD!QFOOXFMMDPN

APHIC DESIGNER %FBOOB 1SJEEZ 5BZMPS

EFBOOBU!QFOOXFMMDPN

SUBSCRIBER SERVICE10 #PY /PSUICSPPL *-

1IPOF &NBJM QPF!IBMMEBUBDPN

ARKETING MANAGER 3BDIFM $BNQCFMM

SBDIFMD!QFOOXFMMDPN

NIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH AMERICAN

WER GENERATION GROUP 3JDIBSE #BLFS

SJDIBSEC!QFOOXFMMDPN

ATIONAL BRAND MANAGER 3JDL )VOU[JDLFS

SJDLI!QFOOXFMMDPN

AIRMAN 'SBOL 5 -BVJOHFS

ESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 3PCFSU ' #JPMDIJOJ

IEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/SENIOR

CE PRESIDENT .BSL $ 8JMNPUI

RCULATION MANAGER -JOEB 5IPNBT

ODUCTION MANAGER ,BUJF /PGUTHFS

8&3 &/(*/&&3*/( *44/ 6414 JT QVCMJTIFE

UJNFT B ZFBS NPOUIMZ CZ 1FOO8FMM $PSQ 4 4IFSJEBO 3E 5VMTB

QIPOF $PQZSJHIU CZ 1FOO8FMM $PSQ

HJTUFSFE JO 64 1BUFOU 5SBEFNBSL 0GGJDF "VUIPSJ[BUJPO UP QIPUPDPQZ

NT GPS JOUFSOBM PS QFSTPOBM VTF PS UIF JOUFSOBM PS QFSTPOBM VTF PG

FDJGJD DMJFOUT JT HSBOUFE CZ 108&3 &/(*/&&3*/( *44/

PWJEFE UIBU UIF BQQSPQSJBUF GFF JT QBJE EJSFDUMZ UP $PQZSJHIU $MFBSBODF

OUFS 3PTFXPPE %SJWF %BOWFST ." 64"

PS UP QIPUPDPQZJOH JUFNT GPS FEVDBUJPOBM DMBTTSPPN VTF QMFBTF

OUBDU $PQZSJHIU $MFBSBODF $FOUFS *OD 3PTFXPPE %SJWF %BOWFST

" 64" 1FSJPEJDBMT QPTUBHF QBJE BU 5VMTB 0,

E BEEJUJPOBM NBJMJOH PGGJDFT 4VCTDSJQUJPO 64" BOE QPTTFTTJPOT

QFS ZFBS $BOBEB BOE .FYJDP QFS ZFBS JOUFSOBUJPOBM BJS NBJM

QFS ZFBS 4JOHMF DPQJFT 64 0VUTJEF 64 #BDL JTTVFT

108&3 &/(*/&&3*/( NBZ CF QVSDIBTFE BU B DPTU PG FBDI JO

6OJUFE 4UBUFT BOE FMTFXIFSF $PQJFT PG CBDL JTTVFT BSF BMTP

BJMBCMF PO NJDSPGJMN BOE NJDSPGJDIF GSPN 6OJWFSTJUZ .JDSPGJMN B 9FSPY

/ ;FFC 3E "OO "SCPS .* "WBJMBCMF PO -FYJT/FYJT #PY

%BZUPO 0) 1045."45&3 4FOE DIBOHF

BEESFTT PUIFS DJSDVMBUJPO JOGPSNBUJPO UP 108&3 &/(*/&&3*/( 10

Y /PSUICSPPL *- i108&3 &/(*/&&3*/(w JT B

JTUFSFE USBEFNBSL PG 1FOO8FMM $PSQ 3FUVSO VOEFMJWFSBCMF $BOBEJBO

ESFTTFT UP 10 #PY /JBHBSB 'BMMT 0/ -& 4

.FNCFS"NFSJDBO #VTJOFTT 1SFTT

#1" *OUFSOBUJPOBM

13*/5&% */ 5)& 64" (45 /0 1VCMJDBUJPOT .BJM "HSFFNFOU /P

No. 1, January 20

12

2014 Projects of the YearEvery year, Power Engineering honors some of thebest power projects worldwide. Read about the mostoutstanding successes in the industry.

20 Renewable Energy Roundtable:Production and Investment TaxPolicy to be a Top Priority in 2015

Power Engineeringsat down with five movers and shakers in the

renewables industry. Find out what theyre expecting in the coming year.

26 POWER-GEN 200:The Best in Power Generation

Check out the most successful publicly held companies in the power generatio

business, ranked by a set of financial and performance metrics.

DEPARTMENTS

2 Opinion

4 Clearing the Air

6 Gas Generation

8 Energy Matters

10 Nuclear Reactions

52 Ad Index
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Arickh%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Arichardb%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Arachelc%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Apoe%40halldata.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Adeannat%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Abarryc%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Awayneb%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Ajvanburkleo%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Atmiser%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Asharrynd%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Arussellr%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=mailto%3Ape%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=1&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.com


5/57 www.power-eng.com

OPINION

a 100-year-old industry. I think it will

transform. It simply will not die out.

Kim Greene, chief operating offi-

cer of Southern Company, one of the

largest investor-owned utilities in the

U.S. with 4.3 million customers, said

the company is well equipped to adapt

to this disruptive force for investor-

owned utilities.

We are trying to create the right

infrastructure and rate structure so

that those customers who choose to

use distributed generation are not be-

ing subsidized by the customers who

dont, Greene said. We are also add-

ing several hundred megawatts of so-

lar. So even for those customers who

are getting power the way they tradi-

tionally have, solar now is a more sig-

nificant part of that mix.

Mauricio Gutierrez, chief operating

officer of NRG Energy, the largest in-

dependent power producer in the U.S.

and a leader in DG development, said

the opportunities for collaboration be-

tween centralized and decentralized

power providers are abundant.

I think there is a way competitive

energy companies and the utility space

can work collaboratively, Gutierrez

said. They can be partners. I dont

think its an either or.

Meanwhile, global consulting firm

Accenture released an eye-opening

study last month that measures the

financial impact of the continued

growth of distributed energy resourc-

es. According to the study, the growth

of DG and energy efficiency could

cause the revenues of U.S. utilities to

plunge by up to $48 billion a year by

2025. During the same period, de-

mand for power could fall by more

As electric utilities reel from sig-

nificant revenue losses caused

by the growth of distributed

generation power produced outside

the grid by homes and businesses

power professionals remain deeply di-

vided over the breadth of DGs impact

on centralized power.

The division was plainly evident last

month at POWER-GEN International

2014, where the debate raged in the

conference rooms and hallways of the

Orange County Convention Center in

Orlando, Florida.

This is definitely creating a poten-

tial threat for utilities, said Nisha De-

sai, vice president of Distributed Gen-

eration for NRG Energy. The ones that

are forward looking can turn this into

an opportunity. The ones that dont

embrace it will certainly see their busi-

ness models challenged.

The growing use of distr ibuted gen-

eration is cutting into utilities profits

and their ability to pay for the up-keep

of power lines, substations and gen-

eration equipment. The result: Higher

rates for consumers and more custom-

ers leaving the grid. The blogosphere is

ablaze with dark narratives that place

utilities in an economic death spiral

created by advancements in DG and

consumer demand for cleaner home-

grown energy.

John Easton, vice president of In-

ternational Programs for the Edison

Electric Institute and a former assis-

tant secretary for the Department of

Energy, said the predictions of a utility

death spiral are farfetched.

Some people believe the utility is

dead, Easton said during the plenary

session at POWER-GEN. This is over

than 15 percent as more homes and

businesses produce their own power.

The more likely impact on U.S. utili-

ties would be at the lower end of the

scale at around $18 billion a year, Ac-

centure said. This is because adop-

tion of energy efficiency and distrib-

uted generation will become possible

without subsidies, said Valentin de

Miguel, Accentures global managing

director of Smart Grid Services.

The study also included a survey of

utility executives around the world.

The survey included this quest ion: Do

you believe the concept of a death spi-

ral, where your customers migrate off

the grid or use the grid only as a back-

up, will materialize? An overwhelming

66 percent of U.S. executives said they

believe the utility death spiral will ma-

terialize, while three percent said it is

a significant risk that would impact a

large percentage of their customers.

Thir ty-four percent did not believe the

death spiral would materialize.

However, despite reports of a loom-

ing death spiral for utilities, Accentures

research shows that such a scenario is

unlikely and would be too costly for a

large number of consumers.

The surge in DG is signif icant, but

some utilities and states are making

progress in modifying their business

models to reflect the increasing use of

DG. Claims that DG will lead to the

death of centralized power are outdat-

ed. The industry has moved on and is

adapting to the needs of consumers by

developing more solar power.

What do you think? Contact me at

[email protected]. Follow me on

Twitter @RussellRay1.

The Debate overDistributed GenerationBY RUSSELL RAY, CHIEF EDITOR
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=mailto%3Arussellr%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.com


6/57

W t i h E l t i C L L C

@WECNuclearWestinghouse

Electric Company

S N l P C L t d

U d i t h P

i i

A l l i h t dNO COMPANY IS

MORE FOCUSED

ON ADVANCED NUCLEAR

Westinghouse AP1000 plant under construction in Sanmen, China

www.westinghousenuclear.com

PLANT TECHNOLOGY

For info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS# 2
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=3&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westinghousenuclear.com



CLEARING THE AIR

The Keystone Pipeline is no

stranger to controversy from

environmentalists in the Unit-

ed States.

The project first started construction

in 2008, and was divided into four

phases. Phase one connected the pipe-

line from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele

City, Nebraska and finally to Patoka,

Illinois. This is the longest of the four

phases and spans 2,147 miles and was

completed in February of 2010. Phases

2 and 3 are to be completed by early

2015 and the combined span will total

773 miles, bringing the pipeline from

Nebraska to the gulf coast of Texas. All

phases of the project have drawn con-

troversy, however none more contro-

versial than Phase 4.

It takes a more direct route from Al-

berta Canada to Steele City, Nebraska

spanning 1,000 miles of new pipeline.

It critically integrates the US oil re-

serves from the Bakken oil formation

in Montana into the pipeline system.

The most controversial piece of this

new pipeline is its route directly over

the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. The

future of US oil demands are well de-

fined by market analysts, conversely

the future supply is essentially a blank

script. What will the future US de-

mand for fossil fuels spell for the Key-

stone Pipeline?

Due to environmental regulation

and delays to the fourth phase of the

Keystone Pipeline, TransCanadas origi-

nal $5.4 Billion price tag is now esti-

mated to increase to $8 Billion. There is

less incentive for U.S. investors to make

the project progress due to a recent

significant decrease in oil prices. The

United States imports nearly 8 million

barrels of crude oil a day and much of

that is imported from OPEC countries.

OPECs primary producer is Saudi Ara-

bia, currently producing approximately

9 million barrels of oil every day. This

large production value is nearly tripling

OPECs quota for Saudi Arabia, and the

Saudis are feeling pressure from OPEC

and other large oil producers to step

down production. This sudden influx

of Saudi oil is a large reason why the

global cost of oil has dropped so far.

This is an ideal position for the U.S.

consumer, seeing prices of under $3 a

gallon for unleaded gasoline for the

first time in over five years. However

this hurts the U.S. oil

production market

as well as investors

incentive to invest

into U.S. oil pipelines

and fracking projects.

Saudi Arabia under-

stands what its low

prices are doing to

the U.S. oil production. Fracking is a far

more expensive process than tradition-

al oil extraction; one can deduce that

Saudis are currently using their ability

to increase oil exports to gain a compet-

itive advantage over their competition.

In turn the increased oil production by

Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations

has decreased the global price of Crude

Oil to under $60 per barrel.

On Nov. 18, 2014 the Senate failed

to pass legislation to allow phase 4 of

the pipeline to come to fruition. The

Keystone pipeline isnt likely to see an

excess of funding any time in the near

future from to the federal government

due unexpectedly low oil prices, which

is a short term win for U.S. consumers.

Economists estimate the price cut in

gasoline will save the U.S. consumers a

total of $65 billion a year. However if

we want to become energy independent

from the OPEC nations, the Keystone

Pipeline is a step in the right direction.

It will allow North American produced

oil and natural gas to be supplied to

power plants in the eastern half of our

country while helping to stabilize the

price of gas.

This years Midterm Elections provid-

ed monumental change to the political

landscape bringing in Republican con-

gressional control that hasnt been seen

since January of 2007.

Starting in 2015, Re-

publicans will hold

54 seats in the senate,

246 in the house and

31 governorships.

Contrary to popular

belief Republicans

still support strict

environmental standards. The current

cap and trade approach has been sup-

ported by multiple Republican presi-

dents including G.W. Bush. The cap

and trade approach is marketed as the

most environmentally and economi-

cally sensible approach to controlling

greenhouse gas emissions. What will

this change in political landscape spell

for the Keystone Pipeline and the EPAs

new Clean Power Plan? Will a Repub-

lican controlled Congress, the EPA and

environmental groups work together to

agree on funding and approval for the

Keystone pipeline and provide a light at

the end of the tunnel?

Light at the

end of the TunnelBY SEAN MCCLURG, MITSUBISHI HITACHI POWER SYSTEMS AMERICA

What will this

change in politicallandscape spell forthe Keystone Pipelineand the EPAs newClean Power Plan?
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=4&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.com


8/57

PERFORMANCEHAS A NEW NAME

THE WORLDS MOST EXPERIENCED AND ONLY SUPPLIEROF GENUINE LJUNGSTRMAIR PREHEATERS HAS A NEWNAME. WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE FORMATION

OF THE LJUNGSTRM DIVISION OF ARVOS GROUP.

You may know us by our former name Alstom Power Inc. Air Preheater Company,and we remain located in Wellsville NY as we have been since .

With our industry leading products and solutions and our commitment to R&D,you can rest assured that the LJUNGSTRM Division will continue to raise the baron air preheater technology, and always meet our customer expectations.

ARVOS Inc

LJUNGSTRM Division Truax Road, Wellsville, NY

Web: www.arvos-group.comTel: + Email: [email protected]

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=mailto%3Aljungstrom%40arvos-group.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=5&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arvos-group.com



GAS GENERATION

least no one expects to see a new coal

plant being built anytime soon.) In this

respect, natural gas is the relative new

kid on the blockthe cleaner, more effi-

cient hero of the environment, the savior

of well-lit dining rooms everywhere. Or

it was until those punk upstarts in re-

newable energy stormed the stage.

Anymore it seems that natural gas-

fired power plants are themselves

feeling a little threatened, and this

time its renewable energys fault. Per-

haps, though, natural gas-fired plants

shouldnt feel quite so vulnerable. Re-

newable resources like wind and solar

represent important innovations in the

energy industry. In the very long term

they may even prove to be the dominant

force in the market, but it seems unlikely

that they will ever entirely supplant gas

generation. This is good news for a lot of

people. It means that renewables should

not be seen as obstacles, but as oppor-

tunities, and many utilities and power

plants are seeing them as just that.

Hybrid power plantsthose that

couple traditional fossil generation with

renewable technologies like wind or

solarare being developed across the

country. In many cases, these projects

do not represent entirely new installa-

tions, but existing fossil plants that have

chosen to add renewable resources to

their extant facilities. Such a proposition

can be enticing. Renewable add-ons are

typically cheaper than their greenfield

counterparts because they can share cer-

tain components like controls, valves,

and transmission lines with the fossil

infrastructure to which they are retrofit-

ted. Other factors driving the addition of

Ionce stayed overnight in an apart-

ment with a fake fireplace. If youre

like me, when you hear the phrase

fake fireplace you immediately de-

velop a certain picture in your mind.

Im not going to tell you if I like fake

fireplaces or notI dontand its beside

the point whether you feel that fake fire-

places are chintzy or merely convenient.

The point is, when you hear that phrase,

you inevitably conjure up a particular

mental imagefake logs, painted ashes,

an artificial glow, all there to create the

impression of a log fire, albeit one whose

heat is actually derived from natural gas.

The fake fireplace in this apartment

was not so different. It relied on natural

gas for its flame and associated heat, and

it employed an artificial facade to trick

the eye into believing it was something it

was not. The only difference was, instead

of imitating an old-fashioned wood fire,

this particular fireplace pretended to be

an even older-fashioned coal fire, circa

merry old Victorian London, with large

chunks of fake anthracite piled up to

create the illusion of an ample supply of

mined fuel.

Even at the time, I found this scene cu-

rious. Never mind that I nearly blew up

the apartment trying to light the ancient

contraption; it stuck in my memory. It

wasnt until I began my editorial career in

energy that I realized just how ironic this

picture was. Here was a natural gas in-

stallation masquerading as a coal-burn-

ing appliance. You wont find many gas-

fired power plants doing that these days.

No, gas-fired power plants are proud

facilities lately, and it seems the days of

coal-fired generation are numbered. (At

renewable assets include the potential

for carbon pricing in the future and the

renewable portfolio standards being ad-

opted by many states.

Of course, its not just fossil plants

that benefit from hybridity. Renewable

technologies also benefit from their re-

lationship to fossil plants, in that their

much-decried intermittency issues can

be effectively mitigated by their more

reliable fossil brethren. In this way, hy-

brid power plants are like hybrid cars.

They can utilize their clean renewable

technologies when it is advantageous,

and depend on their fossil technologies

when renewable options prove infea-

sible.

Currently more than 80 percent of

power generated by the average hybrid

plant comes from traditional fossil fu-

els like natural gas, with the remain-

ing power being generated renewably.

But its reasonable to anticipate a time

when this dichotomy will find greater

equilibrium, and renewable resources

will shoulder a greater portion of the

load. Predictions are tricky things, and

more than one prognosticator has been

made to look foolish by history. (I once

saw a 1950s-era prediction that personal

computers would somehow incorporate

a bus-sized steering wheel.) Renewables

may merely supplement natural gas in-

definitely, or if the tables turn in our

Jetsons-like future, natural gas might

one day rank second in capacity to so-

lar and wind. In the coming decades the

two might even find some semblance of

parity. Whatever the case, gas-fired gen-

eration will have a place in the energy

markets for a very long time.

Hybrid Power:The Relevance of Gasin an IncreasinglyRenewable WorldBY TIM MISER, ASSOCIATE EDITOR


10/57

PE

RFO

RMA

NCE

Redecam gives you total project control

for total pollution control.

POWER CEMENT BIOMASS WASTE TO ENERGY

REDECAM USA

WORLDWIDE OFFICES

USA, LLC

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=7&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.com


11/57


12/57

Duct Burner2

H.P. Superheater4

H.P. Evaporator5

H.P. Steam Drum15

L.P. Vent Silencer16

H.P. Vent Silencer14

L.P. Steam Drum w/ Integral Deaerator17

Distribution Grid1

Observation Port3

Injection Grid7

S.C.R.8

C.O. Catalyst6

H.P. Economizer10

L.P. Superheater11

H.P. Evaporator9

L.P. Evaporator 13

DA. Pre-Heater 12

Stack18

H.P. Steam Outlet

L.P. Superheater Outlet

BEST SUITED

FOR GASTURBINES UPTO 120+MW.

In addition to designing and manufacturing

world-class industrial boilers, Victory

are custom-engineered for combined

combined cycle applications.

VEO HORIZONGas-Turbine HRSG

Because of the current demand for small to

.

Work directly with industry experts

known worldwide for providing proven

cutting edge emissions and enhanced

construction.

Call 918.274.0023

WWW.VICTORYENERGY.COM - 10701 EAST 126TH STREET NORTH, COLLINSVILLE, OKLAHOMA 74021

F O L L O W A L E A D E R

Expect the Best from

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2FWWW.VICTORYENERGY.COMhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2FL.P.Vehttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=9&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2FH.P.St



NUCLEAR REACTIONS

in reducing carbon emissions.

Depending on how these regulations

evolve after EPA addresses the millions

of comments it received by the Dec. 1,

2014 deadline, nuclear power could po-

tentially benefit from favorable treatment

although the benefit may be modest. A

major contention raised during the com-

ment period revolved around the fact that

the original language would not allow

states where nuclear plants are being built

to claim credit for nuclear plants already

under construction.

Before getting overly excited about the

111(d) provisions, however, recall that

weve been down similar carbon reduc-

tion paths. In the 2008-2009 time peri-

od, expectations were relatively high that

carbon legislation of some sort was going

to pass. Multiple bills were put forward,

some getting close to passing, and each

likely would have provided a boost to nu-

clear power. Some companies, such as Ex-

elon, bet heavily that a nuclear-weighted

generation portfolio would be profitable

in a carbon-constrained environment.

That didnt come to pass, of course, and

the growth of renewables and gas-fired

generation is now putting even more

pressure on some nuclear plants.

Notwithstanding the points above, Im

relatively optimistic about nuclear power

in the United States. I think many people

equate a nuclear renaissance with an

intense level of new construction. Thats

not the way to look at it. The real Renais-

sance with a capital R evolved from

the darkness of the Middle Ages, and

didnt suffuse European culture immedi-

ately. Neither will this.

There remains a place for clean, base-

load power to satisfy the demand for

round-the-clock electricity. Im betting

on the tortoise.

One of Aesops most famous fa-

bles is the story of the tortoise

and the hare. The tortoise chal-

lenges the hare to a race after the hare rid-

icules the tortoises slow-moving nature.

When the race starts, the hare quickly

takes off and builds a large lead. After a

while, he decides to take a mid-race nap

confident that the tortoise is so far be-

hind hell never catch up.

While the hare is sleeping, the tor-

toise plods along at a steady pace and

ultimately passes the hare to win the

race. The moral of the story: Slow and

steady wins the race.

In observing the U.S. nuclear power

industry the past 15 years, its clear to me

the hares are too often out front. Expecta-

tions about a nuclear renaissance pop up

every few years in response to one stimuli

or another, only to be tamped down by

the reality of economics or politics or

public perception.

Remember the U.S. Department of

Energys (DOE) loan guarantee pro-

gram launched back in 2008? That

was supposed to be the governmen-

tal spark that would initiate a fresh

round of nuclear plant construction.

Admittedly, it didnt completely fail.

DOE received 17 applications for loan

guarantees, and Southern Company

did secure a loan guarantee for the

Vogtle project in Georgia.

No one could claim with a straight

face, however, that it has worked well.

Negotiations between Southern and

the DOE took years, with final agree-

ment only occurring in early 2014, and

an earlier loan guarantee application

from Constellation Energy Nuclear

Group never got off the ground.

This past September, DOE announced

plans for a new $12.6 billion loan

guarantee program. This one would ap-

ply not only to new nuclear plant projects,

but also to uranium enrichment facilities,

capacity uprates, and small modular reac-

tors. Probably a more realistic approach

in light of current market conditions, but

details are still being worked out.

As the four new units at the Vogtle and

Summer plants in Georgia and South

Carolina began to rise from the ground

in the last two years, that was supposed to

be the next signpost heralding the coming

renaissance. While significant progress

has been made just take a look at one

of the many impressive time-lapse videos

of the basemat pour or the placement of

one of the large modules for visible proof

its not been smooth sailing. Both proj-

ects face potential delays and potential

cost increases because of challenges

with the fabrication and delivery of mod-

ules and because of design modifications

along the way to comply with regulatory

requirements. South Carolina Electric &

Gas is in the midst of negotiations with

its main vendors, Westinghouse and Chi-

cago Bridge and Iron, to revise the sched-

ule and develop a new cost estimate. So

again, lets manage our expectations.

The most recent nuclear savior to come

on the scene is the Clean Power Plan,

which the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) proposed in June 2014

as a commonsense plan to cut carbon

pollution from power plants. It is more

commonly referred to as 111(d) because

its built around a section of the Clean Air

Act that enables EPA to establish guide-

lines and the states to design programs

that comply with these guidelines to

achieve needed reductions. One of the

building blocks established in the Clean

Power Plan recognizes the role that zero-

emitting sources like nuclear could play

BY BRIAN SCHIMMOLLER, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

The Tortoiseand the Hare


14/57

NRG is a registered servicemark of NRG Energy, Inc. 2014 NRG Energy, Inc. All rights reserved. NRG. 14804

We would like to

recognize the2014 NRG Supplier

of the Year recipients.

Enerfab Power & Industrial, Inc. E&C

GE Water & Process Technologies O&M

DiVal Safety Equipment, Inc. Small Business

Robinson Law Group, PLLC Retail

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.com


15/57



Energy Center; 1,250 MW in Riviera

Beach, Florida

The Florida Power & Light Riviera

Beach Next Generation Clean Energy

Center was built on the site of a 1960s-

era oil-burning plant. The new plant uses

33 percent less fuel per megawatt-hour

than its predecessor and is capable of

producing more than 1,250 MW of elec-

tricity without using any additional water

or land, all while significantly reducing

emissions. The plant utilizes combined-

cycle natural gas technology that reuses

exhaust heat given off by the gas turbine

to create steam and generate additional

energy.

The new Riviera Beach facility produc-

es approximately half of the CO2 emis-

sions, and more than 90 percent fewer

air emissions, of the oil plant it replaces.

In addition, the plants administration

building was built to the U.S. Green

Building Councils Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design (LEED) cer-

tification standards and includes roof-

top solar panels, which help reduce the

plants auxiliary load requirements.

In the plants first full year of opera-

tions, it is expected to generate approxi-

mately $25 million in new tax revenue to

benefit local residents. Over its 30-year

same elevation as the plant, and by using

the removed soil to create an additional

protective layer over the sealed landfill.

An application for a Certificate of Au-

thority (CoA) for the new facilities was

filed April 2, 2009, but there were uncer-

tainties related to future environmental

regulations, the need to maintain a reli-

able generating asset in central Wiscon-

sin, and the need to minimize project

capital cost in order to reduce rate-payer

impacts.

The PSC issued the CoA on March 11,

2011.

NATURAL GAS

Winner: Florida Power & Light Riv-

iera Beach Next Generation Clean

retrofit at the Columbia Energy Centers

existing 512-MW and 511-MW subcritical

coal-fired units. The project was complet-

ed on time with an accelerated schedule,

and at a price significantly under budget.

Costs were controlled using an open-to-

closed-book EPC process and through in-

novative construction techniques.

B&V used integrated phase planning

(IPP), which begins with development of

an integrated baseline schedule. Work ac-

tivities that required integration between

subcontractors were identified, and sub-

contractors involved met to develop ad-

vanced work plans.

Resulting IPP schedules were moni-

tored. Babcock & Wilcox used extensive

ground fabrication to move work activi-

ties from congested locations high above

the ground to more open areas near

ground level. Cables were cut offsite and

delivered, minimizing waste.

Some wood materials were donated to

Habitat for Humanity and to a local farm

that rehabilitates abused animals. B&V

workers also provided gifts to needy chil-

dren, donated more than $20,000 to a

community splash pad, collected 700 lbs.

of food for a local food pantry, and par-

ticipated in the Ride/Walk for Veterans

and the International Coastal Cleanup.

The construction area was surrounded

by the existing power plant, cooling lake,

and a sealed ash landfill. State regula-

tions limited activities on top of the ash

landfill, which was resolved by removing

soil from the hill to create a flat site at the

COAL RUNNER UP:Columbia Energy Center AQC Retrofit

NATURAL GAS WINNER: Riviera Beach Next Generation Clean Energy Center


17/57


18/57

EXHIBIT AND SPONSORSHIPOPPORTUNITIES NOW AVAILABLE!

AUGUST 18-20, 2015GREATER COLUMBUS CONVENTION

CENTER COLUMBUS, OHIO

power-gennaturalgas.com

POWER-GEN Natural Gas, a new conference

by the Oil & Gas Journalin conjunction with

POWER-GEN, offers vendors, suppliers and

operators the opportunity to get their equipment

and services before a distinct audience of key

decision-makers in natural gas.

Sales are strong and growing. Reserve your

space today for the best available position.

To book your space and for sponsorship

opportunities, please contact Sara or

Justus today!

SARA LOWERY NG

Direct: +1-713-963-6277

E-mail: [email protected]

JUSTUS SWANTER

Direct: +1-713-963-6243

E-mail: [email protected]

PRESENTED BY: OWNED & PRODUCED BY:

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=mailto%3Ajustuss%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=mailto%3Asaran%40pennwell.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpower-gennaturalgas.com


19/57


20/57


21/57


22/57

Keeping your plant efficient while

maintaining environmental compliance

Power Generation Products

Environmental Control Solutions

After Market Services

With over 50 years of experience and many successful projects around the world, Mitsubishi Hitachi

Power Systems America Energy and Environmentis an industry leader in Power Generation and AirQuality Control Systems. Our proven technologies include Fabric Filters, Enhanced All Dry Scrubbers,

Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization, and SCR Systems and Catalyst.

Our Air Quality Control Systems significantly reduce your emissions to comply with MATS andupcoming environmental regulations with minimum capital investment, low operating costs, highreliability and no effect on unit operations like ramp rate or turndown.

Ask us about our total plant solutions. Visit us online to learn more about our world-class capabilities.

Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems

America Energy and Environment, Ltd.

www.psa.mhps.com

[email protected]

Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Americas, Inc.

www.mhpowersystems.com

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=19&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=19&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mhpowersystems.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=19&exitLink=mailto%3Apower.info%40psa.mhps.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=19&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psa.mhps.com


23/57



and biomass. The renewable industries at

large are capital investment-intensive in-

dustries, so tax credits have a tremendous

impact on where people choose to invest

their money. The lapse in the tax credits

is very destructive to not only growth in

these industries, but also to the advance-

ment of technology and the creation of

jobs. Lets hope the future congress will

make these issues a priority.

Blittersdorf: Because of the problems

with our policy, a two-week extension of

the PTC doesnt accomplish anything. I

have a background in both wind and so-

lar, so I get to play in the solar industry

while the wind industry tries to figure out

if its going to have any policy to support

it. But it is still really troublesome because

of where the tax equity investors are go-

ing, and because of how scared they be-

come in the absence of good policy at

developments in other countries, and

against anything that yields a better re-

turn on investment for the financier. Its

the stability, predictability, and transpar-

ency of the policy that invites investment.

These technologies are not Republican or

Democrat; they are energy-producing

technologies that are great investments

for the United States. The reasons the pol-

icies were put in place to begin with were

to diversify our energy supply, increase

national security, and help the environ-

ment, and these are bipartisan objectives.

We need to get away from thinking that

certain technologies fit into one party or

another, and realize that they benefit ev-

eryone.

Gawell: And its not just wind and

solar that are affected by these things.

Geothermal is also caught up in the lapse

of the PTC, and so too are hydropower

try to figure out how to creatively take ad-

vantage of this extension. This is no way

to do business, and it is not smart policy.

Short-term extensions do not keep devel-

opers in business, and they do not con-

vince companies to make investments in

research and development that will ulti-

mately bring down costs.

Kimbis:Too often we have discussions

within the energy community about

where financiers are going to put their

money. We ask ourselves, if theyre not

going to put money into wind and solar,

are they going to shift it over to natural

gas or something else? I think the folks

who focus on energy-related policy need

to realize more broadly that most finan-

ciers can put their money anywhere they

like. Renewables arent just competing

against fossil fuel investments; theyre

also competing against infrastructure

Karl Gawell Tom Kimbis Derek Stilwell Emily Williams


25/57


26/57

ONLY ONEBOLTING SYSTEM

IMPROVESSAFETY, QUALITY,

& SCHEDULEFOR GAS TURBINE

MAINTENANCE

www.power-eng.com

and the proper technologies to integrate

renewable assets into their portfolios.

Many utilities are creating opportunities

for renewables that make the industry

possible today. The transformation has

been difficult for them. Theyve been giv-

en a very limited set of options to solve

problems, and they have very harsh cost

constraints. While renewables have con-

tinued to improve on their competitive-

ness, and while utilities have continued

to invest, policies have not been created

that allow utilities to integrate amongst

one another, or to develop transmission.

Utilities continue to be the backbone, not

necessarily of the way electricity is gener-

ated anymore, but of the way energy is

transmitted and distributed. In my mind,

utilities should not be seen as opposing

parties. Rather, we need to create avenues

that open doors and develop relation-

ships that are mutually beneficial.

Im in wind power. I live and die in the

renewable world, daily competing against

fossil fuels that my colleagues live on. But

resource to be integrated. Technologies

can be very complementary, but we need

to have the right institutions, grid struc-

tures, and policies to make the whole

thing work.

Kimbis: One way to look at this is from

the laypersons perspective. The way

people interfaced with a 1980s personal

computer system seems very rudimen-

tary compared to a full-blown web con-

nection today, where people experience

two-way, free-flow communication. The

institutions that we currently have in

placefrom governments to much of the

technologyare simply not set up to ac-

commodate that sort of multi-directional

flow. Resolving these issues is going to re-

quire a lot of smart people making a lot of

smart decisions at the federal, state, and

utility levels. We need to take this issue

seriously as a country in order to ensure

that we make the right decisions and in-

vestments in what are some tough budget

times.

Blittersdorf: Im glad were talking

about the grid and utility integration.

As we all know, we have a 100-year-old

grid system that needs to change. Were

talking about one-way streets when we

look at how our grid has been set up un-

der a centralized power station model.

This fundamentally has to change. I see

a lack of overall vision about where we

need to go. We have to transition off of

oil, gas, and coal. I believe were going to

transition to an electricity-based energy

system. Electric demand is going to have

to double or triple to make this possible.

These are huge challenges to our trans-

mission and distribution systems. The

new system will have to be really smart to

integrate all the renewables. If we do this

well, we will need only limited amounts

of storage. Were always going to need

some backup, but I dont believe storage

is a huge issue.

Stilwell: In the interest of fairness, I

would like to speak on behalf of utilities

a little. A lot of utilities are progressing.

Theyre heavily investing in renewables
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=23&exitLink=mailto%3Ainfo%40hytorc.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=23&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.com



continued evolution of institutions at all

levels which can match the potential of

these newer technologies.

PE: What does the market for re-

newable energy look like in the com-

ing year?

Williams: Were still finalizing the

most recent numbers, but in the third

quarter of last year the wind industry had

over 13,000 MW under construction,

which is more than weve ever had under

construction at one time before. Recently

weve seen significant cost reductions

for renewable energy. The cost of wind

power has fallen by more than 50 percent

over the last five years, and this has trans-

lated to a situation in which utilities are

actually buying more wind power than

is mandated by policy. In 2013, we saw

companies like Xcel Energy and AEPs

Public Service Company of Oklahoma is-

sue RFPs for 200 MW of wind, and sign

600 MW of contracts because the eco-

nomics made sense. These companies

also see that there is uncertainty about

future carbon regulations, and renew-

ables offer great ways to scale up using

carbon-free electricity. Were also seeing

interest from corporate purchasers. Com-

panies like Yahoo, Google, Microsoft,

and IKEA are investing in wind power

have an incredible duty to keep the lights

on. So theyre operating in an old-school,

and in some cases monopolistic, manner.

On the other hand, many small technol-

ogy companies are bred to move quickly

and want to see change at a much faster

pace. I think this time conflict has caused

a lot of consternation. Even though there

are good examples of utilities that have

embraced renewable technologies, the

majority of utilities have not; theyre not

moving full-bore toward renewables.

There are examples of utilities being very

obstructive when it comes to renewables

and to change in general. Unfortunately,

in some cases we have a real fight on our

hands, and we cant ignore that. Ulti-

mately I think its a fight we can all win

by forcing change for the better. Im glad

to see that at least some utilities are em-

bracing non-heritage fuels.

Gawell: I dont want to be put in a

position of either attacking or defending

utilities, but I also think we have to rec-

ognize that utilities are subject to a lot of

rules that are changing both at the state

and regional levels. We have to recognize

that this is a regulated system. The rules

of the road keep changing because were

still trying to figure out what the rules

should be. What we want to see is the

I think the approach needs to be more in-

tegrative and collaborative. We cant sim-

ply do away with the old to make way for

the new. Rather, we need to accommo-

date a transition from the olds ways into

the new ways that allow utilities to adapt

and adjust in a non-adversarial way.

Utilities are too often seen as part of the

problem, but if you talk to them, they see

themselves as part of the solution. They

are the mechanism by which change can

take place. We at Alstom see utilities mak-

ing a great deal of forward movement that

they dont get enough credit for. Right

now were working with Dominion on an

offshore project in Virginia which is very

forward looking and renewable-oriented,

and which constitutes a bold move on the

part of the utility.

Kimbis: I think utilities are certainly

going to be front and center in the evolu-

tion of the grid. But we do need to real-

ize one fundamental difference between

the way utilities operate and the way the

renewable industry operates. Were run-

ning fast. We have technology companies

that are similar to Apple and Microsoft.

Theyre not looking to innovate 10 or 20

years in the future. Theyre trying to effect

change now. Utilities have a very conser-

vative corporate infrastructure, and they

Solar resources from the southwestern United

States are proving to be very promising in the

renewables industry and in the power gen-

eration landscape at large. Photo courtesy:

Solana.


28/57



MW of generation capacity. Nearly

18,000 MW of that capacity is gener-

ated from renewable resources. Round-

ing out the top five power producers

are: Enel Spa, 95,000 MW; Kyushu

Electric, 91,280 MW; Korea Electric,

65,380 MW; and To-

kyo Electric Power,

64,500 MW.

Duke Energy is

the highest ranking

American power pro-

ducer at No. 7, with a

total generation ca-

pacity of 57,700 MW.

NRG Energy, the

largest independent

power producer in

the U.S., was No. 10, with 52,470 MW.

Georgia-based Southern Company

was No. 15, with 45,500 MW. NextEra

Energy was No. 16, with 42,500 MW.

Although German utility E.ON was

No. 6, with 61,090 MW of generation

capacity, the utility recorded $168.6

billion in gross revenue, more than any

power producer on the list. Gazprom

recorded $160 billion in gross revenue,

the second highest among power pro-

ducers. GDF Suez had the third highest

gross revenue, with $123 billion.

SERVICE PROVIDERS

GE topped the list of service

providers, with $146 billion in gross

revenue recorded in its last fiscal year.

Rounding out the top five are: Sie-

mens, $102.5 billion; Hitachi, $95.9

billion; Toshiba, $62.8 billion; and

Caterpillar, $55.6 billion.

Honeywell In-

ternational is No.

9, with $39 billion

in gross revenue.

Mitsubishi Heavy

Industries is No.

10, with $32.5 bil-

lion, and Alstom is

No. 13, with $27.8

billion. Fluor Corp.

and Emerson Elec-

tric are No. 14 and

No. 15, with $27.3 billion and $24.6

billion, respectively.

GE was the most profitable service

provider, reporting net income of $13

billion in its last fiscal year. Siemens

reported the second highest net income

of $5.79 billion, and New Jersey-based

Honeywell International reported the

third highest net income of $3.92 bil-

lion. The fourth and fifth highest net

incomes were reported by Caterpillar

and Lockheed Martin Corp., with $3.79

billion and $2.98 billion, respectively.

To see the online, interactive version

of the POWER-GEN 200, visit www.

power-eng.com.

The POWER-GEN 200 is

a ranking of the most

successful publicly held

companies in the pow-

er generation business.

This is the inaugural publication of the

POWER-GEN 200, which is restricted

to companies whose revenues are de-

rived from power generation.

The rankings are based on a set of

financial and performance metrics

gathered by researchers at the Univer-

sity of Tulsa. The results will be pub-

lished each year in Power Engineering

magazine. The index is split into two

listings. It features the top 100 power

generators and the top 100 companies

that provide services and products to

power generators. The data includes

gross revenue, market capitalization,

net income, and generation capacity.

Power generators are ranked by

their generation capacity while service

providers are ranked by their gross

revenue. But the online version of

the POWER-GEN 200, which can be

found at www.power-eng.com, is in-

teractive and can be sorted by market

cap, net income, generation capacity,

and gross revenue.

POWER PRODUCERS

French utility GDF Suez topped the

list of power producers with 113,700

The Best inPower GenerationBY RUSSELL RAY, CHIEF EDITOR

The rankings arebased on a setof financial and

performancemetrics gathered byresearchers at theUniversity of Tulsa.
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=26&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=26&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=26&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=26&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=26&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utulsa.edu%2Facademics%2Fcolleges%2Fcollins-college-of-business%2Fbus-dept-schools%2Fgraduate-business-programs%2Fdegree-programs%2FMaster-of-Energy-Business.aspxhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=26&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utulsa.edu%2Facademics%2Fcolleges%2Fcollins-college-of-business%2Fbus-dept-schools%2Fgraduate-business-programs%2Fdegree-programs%2FMaster-of-Energy-Business.aspx


30/57


31/57



**Financials from most recent fiscal year inputted 10/27/2014 **Market Cap as of 10/27/2014

# Company NameCompanyCountry

Company Symbol Total Generation Capacity (MW) Market Capitalization (USD) Gross Revenue (USD)

1 GDF Suez France Euronext Paris: GSZ 113,700 54,270,000,000 122,930,000,000

2 Enel Spa Italy Italian ENEL 95,000 45,820,000,000 106,350,000,000

3 Kyushu Electric Company Japan Tokyo: 95080 91,280 N/A 17,420,000,000

4 Korea Electric Power Corporation South Korea Korea: 015760 65,380 27,510,000,000 50,520,000,000

5 Tokyo electric power company, inc Japan Tokyo: 95010 64,500 4,960,000,000 64,500,000,000

6 E.On AG Germany German EOAN 61,090 32,190,000,000 168,580,000,000

7 Duke Energy Corporation USA NYSE: DUK 57,700 56,790,000,000 24,600,000,000

8 Huaneng Power International China NYSE: HNP 54,930 16,200,000,000 21,720,000,000

9 Comision federal de electricidad (CFE) Mexico Mexican: CFE10 52,500 N/A 24,350,000,000

10 NRG Energy Inc USA NYSE: NRG 52,470 10,040,000,000 11,300,000,000

11 RWE AG Germany German: RWE 49,000 21,070,000,000 70,750,000,000

12 Electricite de france France Euronext Paris: EDF 48,000 52,580,000,000 104,060,000,000

13 Iberdrola Sociedad Anonima Spain Spanish: IBE 46,590 43,500,000,000 45,160,000,000

14 Centrica PLC England London: CAN 46,000 24,650,000,000 43,810,000,000

15 The Southern Company USA NYSE: SO 45500 42,460,000,000 17,090,000,000

16 Nextera Energy Inc USA NYSE: NEE 42,500 42,920,000,000 15,140,000,000

17 Endesa SA Spain Spanish: ELE 39,700 40,240,000,000 40,850,000,000

18 NTPC Limited India Bombay NTPC 39,670 19,560,000,000 12,030,000,000

19 Datang International Power Generation China Hong Kong: 0991 39,190 6,460,000,000 12,310,000,000

20 Gazprom Russia Russian: GAZP 38,240 75,020,000,000 160,070,000,000

21 Taiwan Power (taipower) Taiwan GreTai: B903QA 38,080 N/A 19,750,000,000

22 American Electric Power Company (AEP) USA NYSE: AEP 37,600 27,630,000,000 15,360,000,000

23 hydro-quebec Canada German: 04QA 36,970 N/A 12,040,000,000

24 The Kansai Electric Power Company Japan Tokyo: 95030 35,760 8,040,000,000 32,360,000,000

25 Exelon Corporation USA NYSE: EXC 35,000 30,700,000,000 24,890,000,000

26 AES Corporation USA NYSE: AES 35,000 9,930,000,000 15,890,000,000

27 Entergy Corporation USA NYSE: ETR 34,600 14,750,000,000 11,390,000,000

28 Chubu Electric Power Co, INC Japan Tokyo: 95020 32,830 8,260,000,000 27,640,000,000

29 Calpine Corporation USA NYSE: CPN 28,100 8,840,000,000 6,300,000,000

30China Resources PowerHoldings Company Limited

Hong Kong Hong Kong: 836 26,000 12,870,000,000 8,980,000,000

31Huadian Power InternationalCorporation Limited

China Hong Kong: 1071 25,780 5,910,000,000 10,900,000,000

32 China Yangtze Power Co. Ltd China Shanghai: 600900 25,300 21,140,000,000 3,710,000,000

33 Dominion Resources, Inc USA NYSE: D 23,600 41,210,000,000 13,120,000,000

34 EDP Portugal Euronext Lisbon: EDP 22,000 15,090,000,000 22,750,000,000

35 CLP Holdings Limited Hong Kong Hong Kong 0002 20,000 21,270,000,000 13,480,000,000

36 Ppl Corporation USA NYSE: PPL 19,000 22,940,000,000 11,860,000,000

37 China Shenhua Energy Company China Hong Kong: 1088 18,000 53,800,000,000 46,430,000,000

38 Firstenergy Corp USA NYSE: FE 17,850 15,250,000,000 14,920,000,000

39 Tohoku Electric Power Company, INC Japan Tokyo: 95060 17,000 N/A 19,830,000,000

40 Xcel Energy USA NYSE: XEL 17,000 16,630,000,000 10,910,000,000

41 Enersis SA Chile NYSE: ENI 15,850 15,448,000,000 11,920,000,000

42 Gas Natural SDG SA Spain GAS 15,400 27,970,000,000 34,370,000,000

43 Fortum Oyj Finland OMX Helsinki: FUM1V 15,130 20,050,000,000 8,340,000,000

44China Power InternationalDevelopment Limited

Hong Kong Hong Kong: 2380 14,820 3,830,000,000 3,080,000,000

45 Empresa Nacional de Electrididad S.A Chile NYSE: EOC 13,850 12,410,000,000 3,860,000,000

46 Public Service Enterprise Group Inc USA NYSE: PEG 13,230 20,020,000,000 9,970,000,000

47 Public Power Corporation Greece London: PPCD 12,760 5,800,000,000 8,220,000,000

48 EnBW Energie Baden-Wurttemburg AG Germany XETRA: EBK 12,650 9,120,000,000 28,280,000,000

49 Edison SPA Italy Italian: EDN 12,100 3,340,000,000 17,960,000,000

50 Chugoku Electric Power Co. Japan Tokyo: 95040 11,800 N/A 12,220,000,000

POWER-GEN 200 : TOP 100 POWER PRODUCERS
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=29&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2FS.AChttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=29&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.com



**Financials from most recent fiscal year inputted 10/27/2014 **Market Cap as of 10/27/2014

POWER-GEN 200 : TOP 100 POWER PRODUCERS

# Company NameCompanyCountry

Company Symbol Total Generation Capacity (MW) Market Capitalization (USD) Gross Revenue (USD)

51 Constellation Energy Group Inc USA N/A see Exelon 11,750 7,530,000,000 1,000,000,000

52 Scottish and Southern Energy Scotland London SSE 11,300 24,600,000,000 50,880,000,000

53 DTE Energy USA NYSE: DTE 11,080 14,190,000,000 9,660,000,000

54 A2A Spa Italy Italian : A2A 10,800 3,000,000,000 7,420,000,000

55 Ameren Coporation USA NYSE: AEE 10,270 10,010,000,000 5,840,000,000

56 TransAtla Corporation USA NYSE: TAC 8,950 2,670,000,000 2,140,000,000

57 Hokkaido Electric Power Company, Inc Japan Tokyo: 95090 8,390 N/A 6,130,000,000

58 Hokuriku Electric Power Company Japan Tokyo: 95050 8,110 N/A 4,960,000,000

59 Verbund AG Austria Vienna: VER 7,700 N/A 4,380,000,000

60 PGE Corporation USA NYSE: PCG 7,640 22,240,000,000 15,600,000,000

61CESP- CompanhiaEnergetica de Sao Paulo

Brazil Pink Sheets: CESQ 7,460 2,940,000,000 1,650,000,000

62 Westar Energy Inc USA NYSE: WR 7,200 4,770,000,000 2,370,000,000

63 Shikoku Electric Power Company, Inc Japan Tokyo: 95070 6,960 2,470,000,000 6,190,000,000

64 OGE Energy Corp USA NYSE: OGE 6,780 7,340,000,000 2,870,000,000

65 Dynegy Inc USA NYSE: DYN 6,770 40,000,000 1,470,000,000

66 Companhia Energetica de Mina Gerais Brazil Sao Paulo: CMIG3 6,700 7,860,000,000 6,190,000,000

67 Osaka Gas Co LTD Japan Tokyo: 95320 6,640 7,960,000,000 14,710,000,000

68 Great Plains Energy Inc USA NYSE: GXP 6,600 4,040,000,000 2,450,000,000

69Ratchaburi Electricity GeneratingHolding Public Company Limited

Thailand Thailand: RATCH 6,540 2,670,000,000 1,540,000,000

70 Pinnacle West Capital Corporation USA NYSE: PNW 6,370 6,530,000,000 3,450,000,000

71 CMS Energy Corporation USA NYSE: CMS 6,130 8,860,000,000 6,570,000,000

72 Wisconsin Energy USA NYSE: WEC 6,020 10,960,000,000 4,520,000,000

73 Origin Energy Limited Australia Austrailian: ORG 6,010 13,840,000,000 13,670,000,000

74 Enel Green Power SPA Italy Italian: EGPW 6,000 11,790,000,000 3,800,000,000

75 Edison International USA NYSE: EIX 5,570 19,760,000,000 12,580,000,000

76 Companhia Paranaense de Energia Brazil Sao Paulo: CPLE3 5,360 3,540,000,000 3,890,000,000

77 Alpiq Holding AG Switzerland Swiss: AT-N 5,270 N/A 10,730,000,000

78 Scana Corporation USA NYSE: SCG 5,270 7,580,000,000 4,500,000,000

79 Eni SPA Italy Italian: ENI 5,200 75,790,000,000 159,800,000,000

80 Alliant Energy Corporation USA NYSE: LNT 4,900 6,700,000,000 3,280,000,000

81 Teco Energy, Inc USA NYSE: TE 4,670 4,500,000,000 2,850,000,000

82 Drax Group PLC England London: DRX 4,000 3,870,000,000 3,400,000,000

83 Hidroelectricica del cantabrico SA Spain N/A See EDP 4,000 N/A 2,390,000,000

84 DPL Inc USA NYSE: DPL 3,800 N/A 1,640,000,000

85 Nisource INC USA NYSE: NI 3,000 13,170,000,000 5,660,000,000

86 Colbun S.A Chile Chile: COLBUN 3,000 N/A 1,700,000,000

87 Avista Corporation USA NYSE: AVA 2,920 2,220,000,000 1,620,000,000

88 Portland General Electric USA NYSE: POR 2,780 2,620,000,000 1,810,000,000

89 Cleco Corporation USA NYSE: CNL 2,570 3,220,000,000 1,110,000,000

90 PNM Resources Inc USA NYSE: PNM 2,540 2,780,000,000 1,390,000,000

91 Hawaiian Electric Industries Inc USA NYSE: HE 2,330 2,820,000,000 3,240,000,000

92 UNS Energy USA Parent Company: FTS 2,250 2,530,000,000 1,480,000,000

93 Pampa Energia Argentina NYSE: PAM 2,220 552,530,000 818,920,000

94 Guangzhou Development Group China Shanghai: 60098 2,100 2,380,000,000 2,720,000,000

95 Atlantic Power Corporation USA NYSE: AT 2,030 277,640,000 551,700,000

96 El Paso Electric Company USA NYSE: EE 1,850 1,510,000,000 890,360,000

97 Sempra Energy USA NYSE: SCG 1,500 26,520,000,00 10,560,000,000

98 The Hub Power Company LTD Pakistan Karachi: HUBC 1,460 N/A 1,680,000,000

99 The Empire District Electric Company USA NYSE: EDE 1,380 1,170,000,000 594,330,000

100 Vectren Corporation USA NYSE: VVC 1,300 3,620,000,000 2,490,000,000


34/57

PO WE R -GE N.CO M

L A S V E G A S , N V

LAS VE GAS CO NVE NT IO N CE NT E R

D E C . 8 1 0 , 2 0 1 5

S A V E T H E D A T E

THE WORLDS

LARGESTPOWER GENERATION EVENT

OWNED & PRODUCED BY: PRESENTED BY: SUPPORTED BY:

http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=31&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=31&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2FPOWER-GEN.COM



Anew report finds that,

with good system plan-

ning, sound engineering

practices, and commer-

cially available technol-

ogies, the Western Interconnection can

withstand the crucial f irst minute after

grid disturbances with high penetra-

tions of wind and solar on the grid.

The report by the U.S. Department

of Energys National Renewable Energy

Laboratory and GE Energy Consulting

is titled The Western Wind and Solar In-

tegration Study Phase 3

(WWSIS-3)Frequency

Response and Transient

Stability Study.

Large-scale transient

stability and frequency

response are critical to

grid reliability, particu-

larly for the Western

Interconnection, which

has a long history of

dynamic performance

constraints on its opera-

tion. The new report spe-

cifically addresses the dynamic perfor-

mance of the Western Interconnection

with high penetrations of renewable

The Western Grid

Can WeatherDisturbances UnderHigh RenewablePenetrationsBY KARA CLARK, NATIONAL

RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY,AND NICHOLAS W. MILLER, MIAOLEISHAO, SLOBODAN PAJIC, AND ROBERTDAQUILA, GE ENERGY CONSULTING

(1) Penetration is the instantaneous % of total generation (not an annual average).

WECC-Wide SummaryLightSpring

Light SpringHigh Mix

Light SpringExtreme

HeavySummerBase

Heavy SummerHigh Mix

Wind (GW) 20.9 27.2 32.6 5.6 14.3Utility-Scale PV (GW) 3.9 10.2 13.5 1.2 11.2

CSP (GW) 0.9 8.4 8.3 0.4 6.6

Distributed PV (GW) 0 7.0 10.4 0.0 9.4

Total 25.7 52.8 64.8 7.2 41.5

Penetration(1) 21% 44% 53% 4% 20%

Renewable Generation Summary for All Study Scenarios TABLE 1

INTEGRATION



controls enabled. When wind and so-

lar generation displaces conventional

synchronous generation, the mix of

the remaining synchronous genera-

tors changes and has the potential to

adversely impact overall frequency re-

sponse.

This analysis focused on spring

conditions when the loads are light,

because the relatively low level of syn-

chronous power generation may pres-

ent a challenge for frequency response.

It also focused on the single largest

design-basis generation outage in the

Western Interconnection: the trip of

two fully-loaded Palo Verde nuclear

power station units for a loss of about

2,750 MW.

The subsequent frequency excursion

is severe, as shown in Figure 1, but in

all cases, the frequency nadirs avoid

UFLS relay action, which begins at 59.5

Hz. The frequency nadir is 59.67 Hz in

the base case (blue line), 59.65 Hz for

the high renewable case (green line),

and 59.61 Hz for the extremely high

renewable case (red line).

In addition, the interconnection-

wide f requency response meets its ob-

ligation (840 MW/0.1 Hz) in all three

cases. However, portions of the system

that rely primarily on thermal genera-

tion tend to fall short of meeting their

approximate FRO with their own gen-

eration resources, especially in the case

with a high mix of renewable energy.

This occurs because that thermal gen-

eration was displaced by wind and

solar, which do not provide frequency

response unless equipped with specific

controls. Other regions, particularly

the Northwest, far exceed their approx-

imate FRO due to high levels of respon-

sive hydropower.

RENEWABLE GENERATORS

CAN CONTRIBUTE TOFREQUENCY RESPONSE

Despite the encouraging results of

the frequency-response evaluation,

WWSIS-3 also examined ways that

renewable generation sources could

contribute to frequency response and

grid stability. Specifically, the report

energy. The report examines a range of

scenarios with instantaneous renew-

able energy penetrations of up to 53

percent (see Table 1), under both light

spring and heavy summer load condi-

tions. For each scenario, it analyzes grid

performance in the tens of seconds fol-

lowing a large grid disturbance, such as

a loss of a large power plant or major

transmission line.

For modeling the renewable energy

systems, all new wind plants and util-

ity-scale photovoltaic (PV) plants were

modeled as asynchronous machines

with voltage regulation and low-voltage

ride through (LVRT), while concentrat-

ing solar power (CSP) plants were mod-

eled as synchronous machines without

governor response.

All new distributed PV was modeled

using the WECC composite load model.

FREQUENCY RESPONSE

AFTER GENERATION LOSSFrequency response is the overall

response of the grid to large, sudden

mismatches between generation and

load. The primary concern is that the

minimum frequency, or nadir, during

design-basis disturbances should not

cause under-frequency load shedding

(UFLS), which means dropping cus-

tomers from the grid. In the West, the

first stage of UFLS is normally at 59.5

Hz. Based on standards developed by

the North American Electric Reliability

Corporation (NERC), the Western In-

terconnection must also comply with

a frequency response obligation (FRO)

of 840 MW/0.1 Hz, which means that

the power output from all generators

should increase by 840 MW for a fre-

quency drop of 0.1 Hz.

Without special operation or con-

trols, wind and solar plants do not

inherently participate in the regula-

tion of grid frequency. By contrast,

synchronous machines always contrib-

ute to system inertia, and some frac-

tion of the synchronous generation in

operation at any point has governor

Frequency response to the loss of two Palo Verdeunits under light spring system conditions. 1


37/57


38/57 www.power-eng.comFor info. http://powereng.hotims.com RS#12

ADDRESSING COAL

DISPLACEMENT AND

WEAK GRID CONCERNS

IN WYOMING

As demonstrated by the transient

analysis, high penetrations of renew-

able energy on the Western Intercon-

nection have a direct impact on how

the system functions, simply because

the geographic locations of the main

power sources will change. Specifi-

cally, a high mix of renewable energy

results in decreasing coal production

in the Desert Southwest (Arizona, Ne-

vada, New Mexico, Colorado) and in

the northeast section of the intercon-

nection, which includes Idaho, Mon-

tana, Utah, and Wyoming.

Because that northeast region cur-

rently features significant power

production from coal, the high-mix

scenario results in more than an 80%

reduction in coal production for this

Voltage response to a loss of the Pacific DC Intertie,without tripping generation, with and without CSPgovernor controls.

3
http://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=35&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southernenvironmental.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=35&exitLink=mailto%3Aapcsales%40sei-group.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=35&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fpowereng.hotims.comhttp://digital.power-eng.com/power-eng/201501/TrackLink.action?pageName=35&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.power-eng.com


39/57


40/57


41/57


42/57


43/57

Project

Location

Filter Change Cycle Water Wash Cycle

Pre-Filter Static/Pulse (H)EPA Online Offline

USA 5.5 months 11 months No (H)EPA 1-3 times/week every 2-3 months

Russia No change No change No (H)EPA No every 2 months

Italy 9.7 months No change No (H)EPA Noevery 3-4 weeks:700-900 hours

Belgium every 18 months every 18 months No (H)EPA Every 2 days every 6 months

China Site 1 1 week-4 months 2 - 8 months 6 - 9 months No every 5.5 months

China Site 2 every 12 months every 12 months No every 5.5 months

www.power-eng.com

influence on compressor efficiency.

There are no hard and fast rules for

when to crank-soak wash because the

schedule must be tailored based on

type of atmospheric contaminants,

temperature, operational frequency,

gas turbine health, and site econom-

ics. In the absence of this information

a prudent strategy

would be to crank-

soak (off-line), wash

every 2 weeks. High

concentration of oily

deposits and dust

will require more

frequent crank-soak

washing.

On-line washing

serves primarily to

maintain gas turbine performance be-

tween crank-soak washes. The prima-

ry effect of on-line wash is to remove

deposits on the blade which adhere

by impact. Also, dust and dirt are re-

moved on the pressure (concave) side

of the blade but not on the suction side

which has a lesser inf luence on eff i-

ciency. For this reason, the use of wa-

ter for on-line wash is often as effective

as a detergent solution. The higher the

concentration of oil and tars, the less

effective on-line washing will be for

improving performance.

In the absence of site-specific in-

formation, it would be beneficial to

on-line wash with water daily. Use of

detergent should be based on testing

Another method for detect ing a

fouled compressor is performance

monitoring. Performance monitor-

ing involves obtaining gas turbine

data on a routine basis, which in turn

is compared to baseline data to moni-

tor trends in the performance of the

gas turbine. The performance data is

obtained by running

the unit at a steady

base load and record-

ing output, exhaust

temperatures, inlet

air temperatures,

barometric pres-

sure, compressor dis-

charge pressure and

temperature, and

fuel consumption.

The data should be taken carefully

with the unit warmed up. If perfor-

mance analysis indicates compressor

fouling, it should be verified by a vi-

sual inspection.

The compressor cleaning operation

is conducted after turbine shut down

(crank-soak cleaning) or while operat-

ing (on-line cleaning).

A consistent gas turbine water-wash

strategy pays for itself many times over

in power and efficiency improvement.

A crank-soak wash is typically the

only means to remove most deposits,

including oily or tarry deposits which

bind dirt to the blades. Because crank-

soak wash cleans the suction (convex)

side of the blade it has the greatest

increases the cyclic stress. Also, dirt in

the dovetail slots will add to the exist-

ing fr iction loading at the dovetail/slot

interface and between the two mecha-

nisms making a blade dovetail failure

more likely. Performing thorough wa-

ter washes with high quality ingredi-

ents on a regular basis with help com-

bat these conditions.

Washing utilizes liquid detergents, a

concentrated solution of water soluble,

surface active agents and emulsifiable

solvents produced primarily for clean-

ing gas turbine compressors, where

the intent is to restore performance by

removing fouling buildup from com-

pressor components.

Methods of Detection

The best method for detect ing a

fouled compressor is visual inspection.

This involves shutting the unit down,

removing the inlet plenum inspec-

tion hatch, and visually inspecting

the compressor inlet, bellmouth, inlet

guide vanes, and early stage blading. If

there are any deposits, including dust

or oily deposits that can be wiped or

scraped off these areas, the compressor

is fouled sufficiently to affect perfor-

mance. The initial inspection reveals

whether the deposits are oily or dry.

For oily deposits, a water-detergent

wash is required, followed by clean wa-

ter rinses. The source of the oil should

be located and corrected before clean-

ing to prevent recurrence of the foul-

ing.

Keeping thecompressorinternals clean canalleviate a number

of problems beforethey ever becomeapparent.

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

Source:

Summary For Filter Change Cycle & Water Wash Cycles 2


44/57


45/57


46/57


47/57



and labor and in some cases is viewed

as going green.

Oftentimes powered fans and equip-

ment are used out of habit or common

sense. Natural ventilation was dis-

missed as unpredictable and the poten-

tial savings in the electric bill seemed

inconsequential. However, in the past

few years, due to many plants look-

ing at ways to reduce their footprint as

well as costs, Power Plants have been

adopting natural ventilation. Power

plants are in the business of producing

and selling power and by using a natu-

ral ventilation system a plant can sell

more power rather than consuming it

to run a Mechanical System.

In fact, since 2010, Southern Com-

pany has put natural ventilation sys-

tems in place at 5 different plant sites.

They were installed at various plant

sites for various applications but the

ultimate goal at each site was to reduce

the heat load inside the building and to

help keep Plant personnel and equip-

ment cool. In doing so, these plants

have seen a reduction of maintenance

BY CHRIS SHEHEANE, CALDWELL/SHEHEANE INDUSTRIAL

In certain parts of the coun-

try, working inside of a power

plant during summer can be

very challenging on both per-

sonnel and equipment. Also,

the higher you go inside a power plant,

the hotter it gets. The closer you get to

the roof, you may start thinking, If we

could just cut a big hole in our roof, we

could get rid of this heat. Well, that

would be called natural ventilation.

Over the years, many industries

have discovered the benefits of natural

ventilat ion. While the steel industr y

has utilized natural ventilation princi-

ples since its inception, industries such

as paper production and glass plants

to aluminum smelters and gypsum

plants have all seen the advantages

of natural ventilation as well. Power

plants however, have been slow to

adopt to this technology mainly due to

a lack of exposure and understanding

of a natural ventilation System and

its benefits. Such benefits include a re-

duction of plant energy consumption,

reduced maintenance costs in parts

Installation of a high efficiency Roof Vent at Power

Plant. Photo courtesy: Moffitt Corp.

The Use ofNATURALVENTILATION

forPower Plants



push fresh, clean air into the building.

This creates an airf low cycle that then

pushes out the hot stagnant air at an

increased rate. A cycle of air, flowing

through the building helps keep the

interior environment and plant per-

sonnel cool.

Maintaining a consistently cool

temperature, and more importantly,

adapting to changes in temperature

are crucial for keeping a buildings

interior comfortable. As the day goes

on and the temperature increases, a

natural ventilation System is self-com-

pensating with the cycle of air moving

through the building increasing as the

temperatures rise, keeping the interior

space cool.

Of course not every environment is

ideal for natural ventilation. There are

certain requirements to ensure that the

air will f low at the proper rate to make

natural ventilation effective. For in-

stance, a building needs to be of a cer-

tain height (typically 24 feet and high-

er) to allow for a proper stack effect for

air movement. Additionally, natural

to perform their work. By installing

weatherproof roof vents and wall lou-

vers, the hot stagnant air was able to

more freely move about the facility.

Natural ventilation increased internal

airflow, leading to a cooler work floor

powerengineering201501 dl

Documents