This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Combined cycle power plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As for avoided CO2 costs, most of the literature that I come up with, eg http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2002_Papers/GTC02030.pdf (slide 25), http://www.climatevision.gov/pdfs/coal_roundtable/dalton.pdf (slide 23) http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq_wksp/David-Herzog.pdf (page 3, last line of table), IPCC special (report http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/SRCCS_Chapter8.pdf) page 38; the MIT coal study, talks of avoided costs in the $18-27 range for CO2 (will be 3.66 times higher for C). These are all without EOR, depending on local situations. also, these are mostly costs avoided, not captured, though a couple of resources do not mention the difference. The IGCC report says upto $14-$53 but that is the outer limit.
this page calls natural gas a relatively expensive fuel. I was under the impression that whilst true in the usa this is not true in europe where it is even sometimes used in thermal power plants when the price fluctuations make it attractive to do so. Plugwash 00:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be categorised? Maybe under thermodynamics and engineering? -- Pelle-Gnillot 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps IGCC should have it's own article? It is a major technology in its own right, and a IGCC plant is very different to a conventional combined cycle. -- PeterHewett 09:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Combined (or binary) power production cycles are generally a gas turbine passing its waste heat into a steam turbine system. The other is an INTEGRATED cycle. Donebythesecondlaw ( talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done this. The IGCC now has its own page. I just cut and pasted. I also moved the link from syngas and linked back to here. Hope this is OK Donebythesecondlaw ( talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this article differentiates properly between CCPP and CCGT. My understanding is that a CCGT is a single-shaft arrangement, with very high (hhp), high (hp) and low (lp) pressure steam turbines on the same shaft as the gas turbine. The design diagram on this page shows a single GT and a single ST, the ST powered by heat recovery from the GT. This isn't really a CCGT (although the term is often used), its a CCPP since the turbines are not on the one shaft. In my experience there is usually more than one GT for each ST. shanvy 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
GE has developed H System with 60% efficiency, using 9H gas turbine. The first unit in commercial operation is at Baglan Bay in 2004. MHI (Mitsubisi Heavy Industry) has also finished verification of their H-series turbine in 2003, which also claimed 60% efficiency. These gas turbine manufacturers have been developing the new turbine series to achieve 60% efficiency under the Advance Turbine System (ATS) program, which was funded by US government.
-- Nitchawan 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the following sentence under Design principle should be changed to:
" In a combined cycle power plant, the heat of the gas turbine's exhaust is used to generate electricity by passing it through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)...."
from " In a combined cycle power plant, the heat of the gas turbine's exhaust is used to generate steam by passing it through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)..."
Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.24.141 ( talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The following statements have no citations and no clear explanation of why these statements are true/valid/complete
"High pressure steam requires strong, bulky components."
"For gas turbines the amount of metal that must withstand the high temperatures and pressures is small, and lower quantities of expensive materials can be used." Why is this? Is the power density of a gas turbine higher than a steam turbine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metric america ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Article reads: "The primary disadvantage of multiple stage combined cycle power plant is that the number of steam turbines, condensers and condensate systems - and perhaps the cooling towers and circulating water systems - increases to match the number of gas turbines." I think that instead of multiple shaft arrangement, this is the disadvantage of the single shaft design.
(Can't find the prior signature, so I may have stomped on it) I agree, and had already changed the substantive page when I found this comment. ArthurDent006.5 ( talk) 07:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Any turbocharged engine is effecively a combined cycle with the turbo charger extracting extra energy from the exhaust gases, and which could be used to drive the wheels, however it is more convenient to use this extracted energy to force air into the engine which reduces the suction loss and thereby improves the efficiency overall.
It seems to me this is not correct at all. Turbocharged engine is not effectively a combined cycle. any engineers around to correct this? Kotika98 ( talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A turbocharged engine is not an example of a combined cycle as it is using the same working fluid, and would be better considered as slightly modified version of the diesel or otto cycle. Furthermore, the gain in efficiency in turbocharging is from an increase in the cylinder mean effective pressure, not from some kind of "suction loss", whatever that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.117.226 ( talk) 06:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I found this text in the article:
...with a reference to a BP article. However, the BP article does not support the claim at all.
The BP article claims that the Reserves/Production ratio (R/P) is less than 60 years. However, this means almost nothing. The term reserves does not refer to the total amount of gas available in the ground to be extracted. Reserves means the proven amount we have already found which is economically recoverable using today's technology. However we discover new reserves every year; this is the norm. For example, reserves in the US have been increasing at more than 5%/year for more than a decade, and the rate of increase has also been increasing. Today, we have higher reserves than in 1971, despite considerable usage during that time. Thus, we cannot calculate the number of years remaining by looking at reserves, because it's not constant but is always growing.
What we need here is an estimate of the total recoverable resources (proved reserves plus probable future reserves) of natural gas. The term resources refers to the total amount of gas which is likely to be discovered altogether. Any figure for total resources is an estimate, of course, since nobody knows how much resource there is.
Estimates of resources are usually 5-6x higher than present reserves. This would provide enough gas for 300 years.
Of course, this does not take into account growth in consumption.
I don't think we should have any text in this article indicating how much gas is remaining. All we could say is: "depletion is not imminent." Other than that would require considerable explanations, alternative scenarios, multiple points of view and estimates, etc. Twerges ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The subject of whether or not turbocompound engines are a failure should be covered within the cited entry on turbocompounding. The turbocompound DDC DD15 engine in the U.S. is one example of a recent, commercially successful turbocompound heavy-duty diesel engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeM42 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The fuel section contains discussions of peak gas, fracking, Brazilian economics and Chinese economics. I think that each of these deserves a page in its own right, and some of them probably already have one. There also seems to be a lack of citations. ArthurDent006.5 ( talk) 07:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let us try to resolve the misunderstandings. September 22 I find a description of what is an ISCC that is partially wrong and anyway unclear. This is what I found:
First the existent most ISCC's use solar troughs, no towers, and anyway I don't understand what are "tower-mounted" solar receivers. And "a power plant using solar thermal collectors" is not a very helpfull description. I roll up my sleeves and write:
and I admit that is incomplete/unclear (to have higher solar conversion efficiencies, the solar contributions *should* be limited to less than 7%). Follows: "Economic benefits are that power plant costs are 25% to 75% those of a SEGS plant. [2]" where I horrendously mis-quote the reference, as said by User talk:Ariadacapo which corrects my error. But also inserts some inaccuracies (I guess he did not read carefully the source I had given). He also asks for a citation. Ok. I correct the inaccuracies, expand about the startup losses and give a citation from Siemens. And change my edit about the solar costs. Here is the result:
But User talk:Ariadacapo is not satisfied and instead to open a talk page (as asked), asks again a citation about the startup losses, and reverts the part about solar costs, stating, this time, erroneously, that I have again horrendously mis-quoted the referenced source. About the citation, I guess he has not read che Siemens source. About the mis-quotation, the source exact wording is: "Incremental Rankine cycle power plant costs are 25 to 75 percent those of a SEGS plant." I find that such a wording is not suitable for Wikipedia, which has a general public. My paraphrase is: "the solar components costs are 25% to 75% those of a Solar Energy Generating Systems plant of the same collector surface." which is how I think would help to understand the solar field (the solar component present in a ISCC plant) cost relationship compared to a complete solar installation. But User talk:Ariadacapo does not agree without explaining why. So, now I will revert and wait. -- Robertiki ( talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
References
In a couple of places the article suggests turbocharging (of automobile engines) and turbocompounding (of aero engines) are examples of combined cycle operation. Strictly speaking I don't beleive this is true, since there is no transfer of heat energy between working fluids - the same hot gas is used in both the reciprocating and the turbine stage, which is analogous to a turbine with a high and low pressure section.
If turbocharging and turbocompounding are to be considered combined cycle I suggest they be in their own section, and the difference (i.e. the absense of heat transfer) be explained. Otherwise reference to them should be removed (perhaps with a footnote explaining why they are not combined cycle).
Additionally, if turbocompounding is retained, mention should be made of modern hybrid systems where the turbine drives a generator to charge batteries which in turn power a motor to drive the wheels, as opposed to the turbine being mechanically connected to the drive train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:4480:6E0:B944:24A5:AEDA:E200 ( talk) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In the sentence, "Many new gas power plants in North America and Europe are of this type", "this type" needs to be defined. In the previous sentence the type just mentioned is a single-cycle steam generator. Should this say they are of the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine type? Fconaway ( talk) 19:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be information about Combined Cycle Systems, however it focuses almost exclusively on Gas Turbine units. Many small modular systems distributed outside the USA/EU use Combined Cycle Combustion Engines CCCE usually with a large Diesel internal combustion engine as the primary cycle and a steam plant running off of the exhaust heat as the secondary cycle. These systems are also very energy efficient rating just a few percentage points below CCGT (54%) with CCCE rating 51%. CCCE have advantages and disadvantages compared to CCGT the primary advantage being they can run on a much broader spectrum of fuel inputs without excessive wear or higher maintenance cycle rates being required.
See http://www.wartsila.com/media/news/29-09-2006-wartsila-bio-engines-drive-italian-green-power for a biofuel modular plant in Italy.
See http://powerplants.man.eu/solutions/combined-cycle for MAN diesel combined cycle power plant examples in multiple countries.
See http://www.wartsila.com/energy/references/europe/aliaga-turkey For a Wartsila Diesel Combined Cycle power plant burning Natural Gas fuel.
Tanada ( talk) 12:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Tanada May 08, 2016
Don't know enough about this to say if it is true, but Mitsubishi is claiming >63% LHV for the M501JAC certain others of their J-series turbines.. should this trigger an article update? 98.117.67.55 ( talk) 04:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
see http://www.mpshq.com/j-series.html
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The error is in the introduction that states as quoted below that the efficiency increases fifty percent. The actual increase, again as quoted, is 100% (meaning doubled). A fifty percent increase from 34% would be 34+17=51%. Either the fifty should become 100 or the 62.22 should be reduced.
Secondly, the precision "62.22%" seems quite overly detailed and mathematically in error, and should be reduced to only sixty-two percent.
By combining these multiple streams of work upon a single mechanical shaft turning an electric generator, the overall net efficiency of the system may be increased by 50–60%. That is, from an overall efficiency of say 34% (in a single cycle) to possibly an overall efficiency of 62.22% (in a mechanical combination of two cycles) in net Carnot thermodynamic efficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.249.100.250 ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The article includes a comparison to the Carnot cycle efficiency: "This is more than 84% of the theoretical efficiency of a Carnot cycle." This statement requires context of the hot/cold reservoir temperature that is assumed to calculate the Carnot cycle efficiency otherwise it is meaningless. Ideally whichever specific power plant achieves this efficiency should be linked. 212.114.178.106 ( talk) 15:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Ref 3 is not working for me but as far as I can tell it is not worth a separate article Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Combined cycle power plant article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As for avoided CO2 costs, most of the literature that I come up with, eg http://www.gasification.org/Docs/2002_Papers/GTC02030.pdf (slide 25), http://www.climatevision.gov/pdfs/coal_roundtable/dalton.pdf (slide 23) http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq_wksp/David-Herzog.pdf (page 3, last line of table), IPCC special (report http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/srccs/SRCCS_Chapter8.pdf) page 38; the MIT coal study, talks of avoided costs in the $18-27 range for CO2 (will be 3.66 times higher for C). These are all without EOR, depending on local situations. also, these are mostly costs avoided, not captured, though a couple of resources do not mention the difference. The IGCC report says upto $14-$53 but that is the outer limit.
this page calls natural gas a relatively expensive fuel. I was under the impression that whilst true in the usa this is not true in europe where it is even sometimes used in thermal power plants when the price fluctuations make it attractive to do so. Plugwash 00:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be categorised? Maybe under thermodynamics and engineering? -- Pelle-Gnillot 04:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps IGCC should have it's own article? It is a major technology in its own right, and a IGCC plant is very different to a conventional combined cycle. -- PeterHewett 09:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Combined (or binary) power production cycles are generally a gas turbine passing its waste heat into a steam turbine system. The other is an INTEGRATED cycle. Donebythesecondlaw ( talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have done this. The IGCC now has its own page. I just cut and pasted. I also moved the link from syngas and linked back to here. Hope this is OK Donebythesecondlaw ( talk) 14:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this article differentiates properly between CCPP and CCGT. My understanding is that a CCGT is a single-shaft arrangement, with very high (hhp), high (hp) and low (lp) pressure steam turbines on the same shaft as the gas turbine. The design diagram on this page shows a single GT and a single ST, the ST powered by heat recovery from the GT. This isn't really a CCGT (although the term is often used), its a CCPP since the turbines are not on the one shaft. In my experience there is usually more than one GT for each ST. shanvy 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
GE has developed H System with 60% efficiency, using 9H gas turbine. The first unit in commercial operation is at Baglan Bay in 2004. MHI (Mitsubisi Heavy Industry) has also finished verification of their H-series turbine in 2003, which also claimed 60% efficiency. These gas turbine manufacturers have been developing the new turbine series to achieve 60% efficiency under the Advance Turbine System (ATS) program, which was funded by US government.
-- Nitchawan 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the following sentence under Design principle should be changed to:
" In a combined cycle power plant, the heat of the gas turbine's exhaust is used to generate electricity by passing it through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)...."
from " In a combined cycle power plant, the heat of the gas turbine's exhaust is used to generate steam by passing it through a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG)..."
Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.24.141 ( talk) 14:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The following statements have no citations and no clear explanation of why these statements are true/valid/complete
"High pressure steam requires strong, bulky components."
"For gas turbines the amount of metal that must withstand the high temperatures and pressures is small, and lower quantities of expensive materials can be used." Why is this? Is the power density of a gas turbine higher than a steam turbine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metric america ( talk • contribs) 04:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Article reads: "The primary disadvantage of multiple stage combined cycle power plant is that the number of steam turbines, condensers and condensate systems - and perhaps the cooling towers and circulating water systems - increases to match the number of gas turbines." I think that instead of multiple shaft arrangement, this is the disadvantage of the single shaft design.
(Can't find the prior signature, so I may have stomped on it) I agree, and had already changed the substantive page when I found this comment. ArthurDent006.5 ( talk) 07:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Any turbocharged engine is effecively a combined cycle with the turbo charger extracting extra energy from the exhaust gases, and which could be used to drive the wheels, however it is more convenient to use this extracted energy to force air into the engine which reduces the suction loss and thereby improves the efficiency overall.
It seems to me this is not correct at all. Turbocharged engine is not effectively a combined cycle. any engineers around to correct this? Kotika98 ( talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
A turbocharged engine is not an example of a combined cycle as it is using the same working fluid, and would be better considered as slightly modified version of the diesel or otto cycle. Furthermore, the gain in efficiency in turbocharging is from an increase in the cylinder mean effective pressure, not from some kind of "suction loss", whatever that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.117.226 ( talk) 06:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I found this text in the article:
...with a reference to a BP article. However, the BP article does not support the claim at all.
The BP article claims that the Reserves/Production ratio (R/P) is less than 60 years. However, this means almost nothing. The term reserves does not refer to the total amount of gas available in the ground to be extracted. Reserves means the proven amount we have already found which is economically recoverable using today's technology. However we discover new reserves every year; this is the norm. For example, reserves in the US have been increasing at more than 5%/year for more than a decade, and the rate of increase has also been increasing. Today, we have higher reserves than in 1971, despite considerable usage during that time. Thus, we cannot calculate the number of years remaining by looking at reserves, because it's not constant but is always growing.
What we need here is an estimate of the total recoverable resources (proved reserves plus probable future reserves) of natural gas. The term resources refers to the total amount of gas which is likely to be discovered altogether. Any figure for total resources is an estimate, of course, since nobody knows how much resource there is.
Estimates of resources are usually 5-6x higher than present reserves. This would provide enough gas for 300 years.
Of course, this does not take into account growth in consumption.
I don't think we should have any text in this article indicating how much gas is remaining. All we could say is: "depletion is not imminent." Other than that would require considerable explanations, alternative scenarios, multiple points of view and estimates, etc. Twerges ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The subject of whether or not turbocompound engines are a failure should be covered within the cited entry on turbocompounding. The turbocompound DDC DD15 engine in the U.S. is one example of a recent, commercially successful turbocompound heavy-duty diesel engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeM42 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The fuel section contains discussions of peak gas, fracking, Brazilian economics and Chinese economics. I think that each of these deserves a page in its own right, and some of them probably already have one. There also seems to be a lack of citations. ArthurDent006.5 ( talk) 07:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, let us try to resolve the misunderstandings. September 22 I find a description of what is an ISCC that is partially wrong and anyway unclear. This is what I found:
First the existent most ISCC's use solar troughs, no towers, and anyway I don't understand what are "tower-mounted" solar receivers. And "a power plant using solar thermal collectors" is not a very helpfull description. I roll up my sleeves and write:
and I admit that is incomplete/unclear (to have higher solar conversion efficiencies, the solar contributions *should* be limited to less than 7%). Follows: "Economic benefits are that power plant costs are 25% to 75% those of a SEGS plant. [2]" where I horrendously mis-quote the reference, as said by User talk:Ariadacapo which corrects my error. But also inserts some inaccuracies (I guess he did not read carefully the source I had given). He also asks for a citation. Ok. I correct the inaccuracies, expand about the startup losses and give a citation from Siemens. And change my edit about the solar costs. Here is the result:
But User talk:Ariadacapo is not satisfied and instead to open a talk page (as asked), asks again a citation about the startup losses, and reverts the part about solar costs, stating, this time, erroneously, that I have again horrendously mis-quoted the referenced source. About the citation, I guess he has not read che Siemens source. About the mis-quotation, the source exact wording is: "Incremental Rankine cycle power plant costs are 25 to 75 percent those of a SEGS plant." I find that such a wording is not suitable for Wikipedia, which has a general public. My paraphrase is: "the solar components costs are 25% to 75% those of a Solar Energy Generating Systems plant of the same collector surface." which is how I think would help to understand the solar field (the solar component present in a ISCC plant) cost relationship compared to a complete solar installation. But User talk:Ariadacapo does not agree without explaining why. So, now I will revert and wait. -- Robertiki ( talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
References
In a couple of places the article suggests turbocharging (of automobile engines) and turbocompounding (of aero engines) are examples of combined cycle operation. Strictly speaking I don't beleive this is true, since there is no transfer of heat energy between working fluids - the same hot gas is used in both the reciprocating and the turbine stage, which is analogous to a turbine with a high and low pressure section.
If turbocharging and turbocompounding are to be considered combined cycle I suggest they be in their own section, and the difference (i.e. the absense of heat transfer) be explained. Otherwise reference to them should be removed (perhaps with a footnote explaining why they are not combined cycle).
Additionally, if turbocompounding is retained, mention should be made of modern hybrid systems where the turbine drives a generator to charge batteries which in turn power a motor to drive the wheels, as opposed to the turbine being mechanically connected to the drive train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:4480:6E0:B944:24A5:AEDA:E200 ( talk) 00:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In the sentence, "Many new gas power plants in North America and Europe are of this type", "this type" needs to be defined. In the previous sentence the type just mentioned is a single-cycle steam generator. Should this say they are of the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine type? Fconaway ( talk) 19:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be information about Combined Cycle Systems, however it focuses almost exclusively on Gas Turbine units. Many small modular systems distributed outside the USA/EU use Combined Cycle Combustion Engines CCCE usually with a large Diesel internal combustion engine as the primary cycle and a steam plant running off of the exhaust heat as the secondary cycle. These systems are also very energy efficient rating just a few percentage points below CCGT (54%) with CCCE rating 51%. CCCE have advantages and disadvantages compared to CCGT the primary advantage being they can run on a much broader spectrum of fuel inputs without excessive wear or higher maintenance cycle rates being required.
See http://www.wartsila.com/media/news/29-09-2006-wartsila-bio-engines-drive-italian-green-power for a biofuel modular plant in Italy.
See http://powerplants.man.eu/solutions/combined-cycle for MAN diesel combined cycle power plant examples in multiple countries.
See http://www.wartsila.com/energy/references/europe/aliaga-turkey For a Wartsila Diesel Combined Cycle power plant burning Natural Gas fuel.
Tanada ( talk) 12:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Tanada May 08, 2016
Don't know enough about this to say if it is true, but Mitsubishi is claiming >63% LHV for the M501JAC certain others of their J-series turbines.. should this trigger an article update? 98.117.67.55 ( talk) 04:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
see http://www.mpshq.com/j-series.html
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Combined cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The error is in the introduction that states as quoted below that the efficiency increases fifty percent. The actual increase, again as quoted, is 100% (meaning doubled). A fifty percent increase from 34% would be 34+17=51%. Either the fifty should become 100 or the 62.22 should be reduced.
Secondly, the precision "62.22%" seems quite overly detailed and mathematically in error, and should be reduced to only sixty-two percent.
By combining these multiple streams of work upon a single mechanical shaft turning an electric generator, the overall net efficiency of the system may be increased by 50–60%. That is, from an overall efficiency of say 34% (in a single cycle) to possibly an overall efficiency of 62.22% (in a mechanical combination of two cycles) in net Carnot thermodynamic efficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.249.100.250 ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The article includes a comparison to the Carnot cycle efficiency: "This is more than 84% of the theoretical efficiency of a Carnot cycle." This statement requires context of the hot/cold reservoir temperature that is assumed to calculate the Carnot cycle efficiency otherwise it is meaningless. Ideally whichever specific power plant achieves this efficiency should be linked. 212.114.178.106 ( talk) 15:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Ref 3 is not working for me but as far as I can tell it is not worth a separate article Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)