Talk:Combined cycle power plant

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Costs given as way too high

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.

I don’t know who wrote this or when but if nobody replies to me I guess it will be archived eventually. Is this still relevent? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Cycle Combustion Engine

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[reply]

It would be good to get some sources that are independent of the manufacturers. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsubishi-Hitachi efficiency

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)[reply]

see http://www.mpshq.com/j-series.html

I stuck this in. We might want to remove some of the older efficiency claims, as this section is getting crowded. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

math error

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)[reply]

That sentence in the article needs to be rewritten. I don't know anything about the subject so I can't really help. It now says "[...] to possibly an overall efficiency of 62% (combined cycle), 84% Theoretical efficiency (Carnot cycle)" and ends like that. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Aeluwas (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody fixed it I guess as I cannot find this - if not suggest you tag “clarify” Chidgk1 (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Carnot efficiency

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)[reply]

Feel free to improve the article but be sure to cite reliable sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Combined cycle hydrogen power plant to here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jusdafax@Clayoquot Thanks for commenting on another hydrogen merger proposal - if you have an opinion on this one please comment Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.