How is this Bio-mass power plant plausible?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Starwatcher16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Plant Power Power plant
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the feasibility of a biomass power plant designed to generate 29 MW of electricity through a steam power cycle, likely utilizing an ammonia-water mixture and two boilers consuming 150 tons of biomass daily at 5200 BTU/lb. The claimed efficiency of 73% raises concerns, as achieving such efficiency would require an impractical temperature differential of approximately 1400°C, exceeding material creep limits for turbine construction. The participants express skepticism about the project's viability, suggesting that the company may have overlooked fundamental engineering principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Rankine cycle thermodynamics
  • Knowledge of biomass energy conversion processes
  • Familiarity with efficiency calculations in thermal systems
  • Basic principles of material science related to temperature limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Research biomass energy conversion technologies
  • Learn about the Rankine cycle and its applications in power generation
  • Study the material properties of turbine components at high temperatures
  • Investigate efficiency benchmarks for various types of power plants
USEFUL FOR

Engineers, energy consultants, and project managers involved in renewable energy projects, particularly those focused on biomass power generation and thermal efficiency analysis.

Starwatcher16
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
How is this Bio-mass [basicaly just a steam power plant] power plant plausible?

It says it is going to supply 29 MW of electricity by burning biomass to heat some fluid (I suppose an ammonia-water mixture, but I really do not know) and turn a turbine (Something like a Rankine cycle I guess). It also says that is will use two boilers capable of consuming 150 tons a day while getting 5200 btu/lb.

29MW*1 day=2.51*10^12 J.

Now, if they turned 100% of that heat energy into mechanical and then electric energy without loss, it would only come out to 3.43*10^12 J/day.

They are claiming they will get this thing to 73% efficency. The problem is, even a carnot engine would need to operate with a temperture difference of around 850 C to achieve this, and since they have no chance of making a system that can match a carnot engine, I would imagine they would really need something like a 1400 C difference.

Isnt that above the creep value of anything they could make the turbines out of?

What am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with your calculation, it seems a little suspicious.
 
diazona said:
I agree with your calculation, it seems a little suspicious.

All the documentation I have seen is really only in the conceptual phase, but the company that submitted it to us to make a bid on it (They want approximate costs of construction so they can start trying to sell it) has already looked like they put a fair amount of work into it (made some isometric drawings and whatnot), which makes me hesitant to think they missed something so basic.

Anyways, I am just an intern, so I wanted to get someone elses input before I asked my boss about this, no reaosn to look like a complete fool on my first week!
 
:smile: well... I hope someone else responds to check this because I also think it's rather surprising that they would have missed something basic like that. Unless they are trying to pull a fast one on your company. And if they are, imagine how much your superiors would love you if you call them on it and save the company from entering into an impossible project ;-) (although I guess it'd be the kind of thing you'd want to bring up discreetly first)
 
Coal-fired power plants (500 - 1000 MW) are roughly 33 - 35% efficient; about 10,000 btu per kilowatt-hour. Gas-fired power plants may be as good as 8,000 btu per kilowatt-hour (40 - 42% efficient).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
18
Views
5K