2015

Thermodynamics II
Design Project
POWER PLANT DESIGN
KYLE JENNINGS & BEN KAMM

Jennings & Kamm

ME 523 Thermodynamics II Design Project
The goal of this project is to create a power plant that will supply 1,000 MW of power. Due
to a recent accident in the tri-state area, using coal as a fuel is not an option. Another design
criterion is that 5% of the output power must come from a renewable resource. This is done to gain
the support of the public for the new project. The final criterion is that the new plant must be
located somewhere in the tri-state region. With this project statement in mind, we went to work
researching different methods of power production.
Fuel and Power Sources
For our fuel and power sources, we created a list of four different sources that we thought
about using. We then researched each of the four sources and found two plants of each type in the
United States. We analyzed each of the sources, and we were able to see how each of these sources
would behave for us, based on pre-existing plants.
The first power source that we researched was wind power. The first plant that we studied
was the High Sheldon Wind Project in Sheldon, NY. This plant went into production in March of
2009, and is rated at 113 MW of output power. This wind project was an agreement between
Invenergy, LLC and the town of Sheldon, NY. Sheldon gave up some land in exchange for a
portion of the profits from the energy produced. From March 2009 to December 2012, the town
collected a total of $4.5 million in the form of payments and improvements to the town, provided
by Invenergy, LLC. The idea of collaborating with a town for land rights is a good idea, and since
New York is a very populous state, we thought that this could be an option for the power plant
especially if we had to place it in a populous region based on other design factors.
The second wind plant was the Noble Wethersfield Wind Project in Wethersfield, NY. This
plant was again commissioned in 2009 as a part of a state-wide initiative to obtain more renewable
energy sources. The rated capacity of energy generation is 126 MW, and is produced by GE
Page 1 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

turbines, just like the High Sheldon Wind Project. Again, this project benefits the community
financially and is expected to generate $77 million by 2029.
Our next power source was geothermal energy production. The first plant that we looked
at was the Casa Diablo Hot Springs and Geothermal Facility in Long Valley Caldera, California.
This plant takes water from the ground near a fault line at 170 C and uses it to heat isobutene and
send it through three turbines. The total combined capacity of the system is 45 MW.
The second geothermal plant that we looked at was the Puna Geothermal Venture I
Geothermal Facility in Hawaii Co., Hawaii. This plant was operational in 1993, and has gone
through one major upgrade in 2004 to upgrade its electrical capacity by 8 MW to increase it to a
total of 30 MW. After one more upgrade in 2010, the plant now operates at 35 MW capacity. This
plant is unique because it utilizes a reheat cycle into a second turbine. We think that geothermal is
a good way to leave a small area footprint, while still producing renewable energy.
The first non-renewable fuel that we looked at was nuclear power generation, more
specifically with uranium fuel. Our first plant was Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit III in
Buchanan, NY. This unit went operational in 1975, and the license is set to expire at the end of the
year (2015). It is a pressurized water reactor, and uses a Westinghouse four-loop reactor. It is rated
at a capacity of 1,025 MW. This is a good example of what could be possible with nuclear
generation in New York.
For our second nuclear plant, we looked into something a little closer to home. We looked
at the Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit I in Burlington, KS. This plant more or less uses the
same technologies as Indian Point does. It is a pressurized water reactor, and it uses a
Westinghouse four-loop reactor. Through our research, we found that the reactor required 12,000
kg/s of water flow to use as a coolant for the reactor fuel. This reactor has a 1,250 MW capacity,

Page 2 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

which is only a little bit more than we want to produce. This really showed us that we will need to
have a constant supply of a very large flowing body of water if the nuclear option is one that we
want to consider. We think that nuclear energy is a great way to go, based on the amount of energy
output compared to the minimal fuel input that the reactor requires to operate at a steady state.
The final fuel type that we considered was natural gas. Natural gas has started making a
large leap in popularity in fuels in the recent 10 years, so we thought it was fitting to include it in
our report. The first natural gas plant that we looked at was the Belle River Power Plant in East
China, Michigan. This plant actually started off with, and still utilizes, coal as a main fuel for heat
production. However, in 1999 they added three natural gas turbines. These added turbines
increased the nameplate capacity of the plant by 256 MW. This was a huge step from their 1,000
MW that they had before, and with the added benefits of the natural gas this plant has received
many awards due to their employees health and their reduction of noxious emissions.
The second natural gas plant that we looked at was the Sim Gideon Power Plant in Bastrop,
TX. The first production unit in this plant was built in 1965, and produced around 140 MW of
power. An identical unit was placed into service in 1968, and a third, and final, unit became
operational in 1972. This unit was bigger, more efficient, and brought the total capacity up to 608
MW. There is a lake right next to the plant, Lake Bastrop, and provides the plant with a once
through cooling system. The water is continuously monitored for noxious chemicals, and so far
there have been no negative side effects of the plant. In fact, the lake is regularly utilized by local
residents as a fishing and recreational body of water. To us, natural gas could be a viable option
due to its efficiency and low emissions.

Page 3 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

Fuel Source Comparison
The next step in the design process was to compare each of the resources to one another,
and create a pros and cons list of each. These comparisons will include environmental factors,
efficiency factors, and relative costs of each fuel. After these comparisons, we will select two fuel
sources to use in our generation plant. As per the design criteria, one of these fuel sources will be
renewable and will be able to provide 5% of the total energy generation.
The first source for comparison is wind power. The most obvious pro to utilizing wind
power is the fact that it is a renewable resource. Not only is this good for the environment, it also
has other, behind-the-scenes benefits such as community support, and tax write-offs. Also, it is
what we like to call a direct energy where there is no power cycle needed. However, there are a
few drawbacks to the wind power. First off, it takes up a lot of land. The latest, most efficient
designs take up about 25 acres per MW, which gives us a total area of about 1,250 acres that would
be needed to produce our required 50 MW of power. For negative environmental concerns, there
is a large possibility of injuring or killing native birds. The final, possibly greatest, concern is the
fact that different areas of the United States have different wind patterns. So in order for us to
utilize the wind power efficiently, we would need to place our wind farm in an area that has a fairly
strong and regular wind. As for costs, wind power costs approximately $80 - $100 per MWh.
The other renewable that we wanted to look at was geothermal. Again, this source has all
of the benefits of being a renewable resource, but it also has the factor of being able to be powered
any time of day. When he sun goes down, usually the wind does too. That means that night time
is not conducive to the production of energy from either a wind or solar source. Another added
benefit is that these plants require far less land than other renewable resources due to the fact that
they are vertical (the energy is tapped from an underground source). The cons include a very steep

Page 4 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

startup cost, and the fact that this is a fairly new technology. This can cause a headache in the form
of bugs due to inadequate testing and inadequate records from other plants. The cost for the
continual use of the plant is $45 - $75 per MWh.
Based on these facts, we believe that a wind farm would be the best option for us to go
with. The main reason is the reliability and availability of the physical plant features. Although the
power source may not be the most reliable, we did some research in the tri-city area and there is
not a great geothermal outlook for energy production. However, there is a section in southeastern
New York that has a decent wind power outlook. We think that this would be a good location for
our plant.
For our first non-renewable source, we are going to look at nuclear production. The pros
associated with nuclear power production are centered on its efficiency. It only takes small amount
of fuel to produce a rather large amount of power. This means that nuclear plants can be quite
small and compact. The negative side of this type of energy production is a very expensive startup
cost. This is due to the minimal public knowledge of the fuel. This causes a lot of government
regulations for new plants that become very costly. After these initial costs, it costs about $90 $125 per MWh to keep producing electricity.
The other source that we are looking at is natural gas. Natural gas is a good energy source
because it is a very cheap fuel. Just like any other fuel it has its ups and downs, but it has averaged
out to be one of the least-expensive fossil fuels. It also burns very efficiently. It is known to be the
cleanest burning fossil fuel that we have discovered to date. However, since the fuel is extremely
flammable, it incurs an explosion hazard that should not be over looked. The costs per MWh for
the production of electricity range from $100 - $135.

Page 5 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

After our research, we have decided to use nuclear power generation as our non-renewable
source. Our main reason for this is the efficiency of the fuel. Since our renewable option was to
use wind power, we decided that we should probably offset the large amount of land used by the
wind farm by employing a non-renewable, yet green, source that is very land efficient. We are also
hoping that we can overcome the stigma of nuclear power by using the project requirement of
having 5% of our energy supplied by renewable sources. By doing this we will be able to obtain
more public support for our project.
Location
For the location of our nuclear/wind power plant, we chose to position our nuclear reactor
WNW of Peekskill, NY. This is a great location, because it is right along the Hudson River. During
our research, we concluded that a 950 MW reactor would require about 12,000-13,000 kg/s of
water running through the reactor to use as cooling water. Based on the averages, the Hudson will
produce a flow rate of around 620,000 kg/s. This is plenty, and shows that this would be a great
location to erect this type of plant. The plant would be located only 10 miles from Peekskill,
however I think with some incentives, this would not be a problem. Also, the town is relatively
small with a population of only 24,000 residents, so this could be a good way to produce some
new jobs in the area.
For the wind farm, it will be located northwest of the nuclear plan, in a semi-hilly region.
As can be seen in Appendix 1, there is an intermediate level of wind flow at the southern tip of
New York where Peekskill is located. While this may not be the best place for strong winds, the
abundance of acreage north of Peekskill would be able to make up for the average wind speeds.
Based on our calculations, we would need about 1,250 acres of land to produce the 50 MW of
power that we need. If you look at Appendix 2, it has the relative locations of our plants picked

Page 6 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

out, and the border that surrounds the place for the wind farm encompasses the 1,250 acres needed,
and shows that the possibility of expansion in the future is very possible to achieve.
Plant Design
For the plant, we are choosing to do a Rankine cycle with a reheat option. This cycle will
start with saturated water at 105 C. It then passes through the boiler and come out of it at 18.0
MPa and 520 C. The vapor will then go into the stage 1 turbine (capacity of 300 MW). After it
exits the first turbine, the vapor is at 0.7 MPa and 170 C. It then goes into the reheat side of the
boiler, and comes out at 0.7 MPa and 400 C. After the reheat, the vapor goes through the stage 2
turbine (capacity of 182 MW). It leaves the stage 2 turbine at 0.1 MPa and around 220 C. After
the turbine, it runs through a condenser and comes out at 0.1 MPa and 99.63 C (capacity of 1,500
MW). Finally, it runs through a pump, and increases the pressure from 0.1 MPa to 18.0 MPa. Then
the cycle repeats itself. To achieve the 950 MW required, we will run two of these cycles in parallel
with one boiler from the reactor that has a capacity of 4,000 MW. The working fluids maximum
potential to do work is 574.5 MW. A schematic of this cycle is located on Appendix 3.
The thermal efficiency of this cycle is 29.6% and the Carnot efficiency is 53%. For our
cycle improvement, we chose to do a reheat cycle. We chose this over an open feed water system
for simplicity purposes. Doing the open feed water system, we would decrease the amount of heat
in, but also decrease the amount of work out. The reason that this is an improvement is because it
decreases the amount of heat in MORE than it decreases the work out. The reheat that we chose
increases the required heat in, but it also increases the work produced. The goal is to maximize the
difference between the heat in and the work out to increase the efficiencies the greatest. A T-s
diagram is accompanied with this report in Appendix 4.

Page 7 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

Environmental Effects
While we believe that these two energy sources are the best options for the location
requirements, environmental effects should not be overlooked. First of all, and the biggest stigma
associated with nuclear power, is the possibility of a nuclear meltdown and the resulting
contamination associated with the meltdown. The nuclear industry received a bad reputation from
the Chernobyl, Ukraine incident, and has been re-ignited in the recent years with the Fukushima
Daiichi accident in Japan. Although these two tragic accidents were very harmful to the workers
and immediate population, much can be learned from these accidents to create safer plants.
As for the wind power, the major environmental impact would be the unsightly towers, and
the possibly of birds being killed as they pass through the area. Our personal belief is that we need
better ways of obtaining electricity, so one may have to endure a little sight pollution to create a
better energy system for society. The other environmental drawback is that these windmills take
up a lot of land. Fortunately, the towers are extremely vertical, so the possibility of farming and
livestock grazing is still available.
In conclusion, our power plant will be rated to output 1,000 MW of power. This will be
done by implementing a Rankine power cycle in conjunction with a wind farm. The Rankine cycle
will be powered by a nuclear reactor, and the working fluid inside the cycle will simply be water.
Our cycle thermal efficiency is 29.6% which is not great. However, the Carnot for this system is
only 53%, therefore I would say that we are doing an okay job with about 30%. Although there
are a few drawbacks associated with this plant, we believe that this will be a very efficient and
economical plant.

Page 8 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Page 9 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

Appendix 3

Appendix 4
800
700

Temperature (C)

600
Saturation Line

500

Cycle
400

18 MPa

300

.7 MPa
.1 MPa

200
100
0
0.0000

2.0000

4.0000
6.0000
Entropy (kJ/kg*K)

Page 10 of 12

8.0000

10.0000

Jennings & Kamm

Works Cited
The Authors. "Thermodynamic Analysis of 120 MW Thermal Power Plant with Combined Effect
of Constant Inlet Pressure (124.61 Bar) and Different Inlet Temperatures."
Thermodynamic Analysis of 120MW Thermal Power Plant with Combined Effect of
Constant Inlet Pressure (124.61bar) and Different Inlet Temperatures. Science Direct,
2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
Brown, Thomas, and Richard Kamm. "Workings of a Typical Coal-fired Power Plant." Telephone
interview. 10 Apr. 2015.
"Daft Logic." Google Maps Area Calculator Tool. Draftlogic.com, 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Detroit Edison's Belle River Power Plant Celebrates 25-year Anniversary." PR Newswire. PR
Newswire Association LLC., 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"High Sheldon Wind Farm." The Wind Power. N.p., 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 3." NRC. NRC, May 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
Moran, Michael J., and Howard N. Shapiro. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics.
Seventh ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011. Print.
"Most Recent Flow and Stage for New York." USGS WaterWatch -- Streamflow Conditions. US
Dept. of the Interior, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
"New York Wind Resource Map and Wind Potential Capacity." WINDExchange:. Department of
Energy's Wind Program, Dec. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Noble Wethersfield Windpark - Noble Environmental Power." Noble Environmental Power RSS.
Noble Environmental Power, 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Puna." Ormat Technologies Inc. Ormat, 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Page 11 of 12

Jennings & Kamm

"Renewable Energy Consulting | Strategy in Clean Energy | Renewable Energy Finance | Green
Rhino Energy Cunsultancy." Green Rhino. Green Rhino Energy Ltd., 2013. Web. 04
May 2015.
Roberts, Jeremy. "Dr. Jeremy Roberts, The Nuclear Protg." Personal interview. 13 Apr. 2015.
"Sim Gideon Power Plant." LCRA. Lower Colorado River Authority, 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Steam Turbine Overview." GE Power Generation. General Electric, 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2015.
"USGS: Volcano Hazards Program - Long Valley Caldera Geology and History." USGS. US Dept.
of the Interior, Jan. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.
"Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1." NRC. NRC, Feb. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2015.

Page 12 of 12