: '

GENERAL. ELECTRIC
GAS TURBINE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PL4.NNING OPERATION
GENERAL ELEGRIC CQ/.,·\PANY •1 RIVER RO.AD • SCHENEGADY, NEW YORK 12345
[
G=G&I:ffi~£ c ~®&®©@
Susitna Joint Venture
Document Number
ll
II Fe~ruary 3, 1984
Please Return To
DOCUMENT CONTROL
J IE
Dr. A.J. policatro
I (1'i.~~ Env~ronmental Research Divisiun
A.l4/ Argonne National Laboratory
9700 sou~h cass Avenue
Argonne, Illlnois 60439
[l
Dear Dr. Polica~ro:

Attached i~ a data set which should answer your questions

' of January 20, 1984. If I can be of further help, please
fl 1

ILL
call.
Sincerely,

~
R.W. Stepien, Manager
STAG Market DevelopmenL
Bldg. 500, Room 224
Il ·L
.·...

.
Phone (518) 385-4411

jeb
Attach,

•
I. ,
~.:...·
-.

..
 [
'
~ ,..,...

SPECIFICATION HIGHLIGHTS OF
I . TRINIDAD & TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION
1t1 GE CIDMBINED-CYCLE.STAG 207E PLANT

i lD
LOCATION: • Trinidad, West Indies, Village ofi Penal

SITE NAME: • Penal Power Station

CLIMATIC
CONDITIONS: • Temperature 23-32°C
• Relative Humidity 65 ..95%
t] • Heavy Rains

. PERFORMANCE: • Fuel Type: • Dual Fuel Gas/Dist.

l i
_, • Output: . ,.. • (ISO) 216 MW (Net Plant Output)
• (Site) 196 MW (Net Plant Output)
• Heat Rate: • 7993.7 KJ/KW-HR (Net Equip.-LHV)
• Efficiency: • 45.0% (LHV)
• Component Outputs: •
• GT Output - 133 MW (2 MS7000E Units - Site)
• ST Output - 67 MW (1 Unit - Site)
, HRSG Steam Cond & ·Flow - 64 Atm, 513°C- 115,90U KG/HR
Steam Each HRSG
ll ~J

CONSTRUCTION
IJ SCHEDULE: • Key Dates:
• Order: November 1982
• GT Operation: 132 MW Commercial-January 1984
• Total Plant Operation: 196 MW Commercial-December 1984

OPERATING
CI·IARACTERISTICS: • Evaporative Cooling Water Makeup: 3030 Liters Per Minute
• Start Up Schedule: • 10 min- 2/3 Capacity
• 1 hr- Full Capacity (Hot)
• 3 hr - Full Capacity (Cold}
'It Operators Per Shift: • 1 Control Room Operator
• 1 Roving Operator
L PLANT DIMENSIONS: • Area: 10,800 M2 (120 M x 90 M)
• Height: 13 M (Bldg. - Max.)

.L
--·,·-r
"
~~-------,,._ . _,._, __ ""---~-"-

. ::::.:----"::·1"'
",

//""
 [
....
'
..i'
,.. l, S207E HEAT REJECTION

• Natural Gas Fuel

lj
• ISO Ambient T&TEC
rn • Single Pressure HRSG

WATER USAGE EVAPORATIVE COOLER

6
493.4 x 10 Btulhr
I tl Evaporation = ~ lOSO Btu/lb = 470,000 lblhr

l] • 940 GPM

BlowdoHn = .SO (Evaporation) = 470 GPM

Drift = • 001 (Circ ~ Water Flow)

= . oo1 ( 916 3 7 oo 1 b 1h r) 1 (8 . 3 3 ) ( 6 o) = ·z o GPM

Ia;,J 1
TOTAL 1430 GPM

Boiler Blowdown = (.01) (532 x 10 3 1b/hr) = 10 GPM ·

IJ
L:.
' ~
.,
Plant Water Consumption (GPM)
Wet Cooling Tower Air-Cooled Cond.
I.~ Cooling Tower 1430 0
Boiler Blowdown 10 10

Total 1440 10

L,.._!{WS
213184

,-,·~---~ ... ·•
'~" ' . -,...,_,,r,_,.~, ·-~
 MS7001E* EMISSIONS

o ISO Ambient
o Natu~al Gas Fuel ..

Steam Injection, lb/hr 0 52530

fi
NOx, ppmvd ref. 15% 0 2 169 42

, lb/hr 545 136

IJ so 2 Depends on Fuel Sulfur

~~ co' ppmvd 10 10

[ti Particulaces Nil Nil

[:-'

IJ
I .
t_;

*All values stated are for one (1) MS7001E gas turbine.

RWS
2/3/84

'""''' ,,,_,-,,, __ ,,,__ ~

............ ,
 l~..__ t

r· _, ll
HRSG STACK (TYPICA~

IJ 65 feet (self-supporting)
Height
!
I
l t1! 11 ft. X 17 ft.
t Dimenslons

tT S~ack Temperature 350°F for HRFH-1 Cycle

220°F for HRFH-2 Cycle
[~'
J
Stack Gas Velocity 70 ft/sec. @ 3S0°F
KJ

t:

tJ
[~

L RWS
2/3/84

L
[,

~r-:"'~---·-:---~-;,.):'::'-1>~---------~- . .--.--.- .. -,,_ _ _._ =:]

____,.. .·
1
; ;' ., '• · \ \. -~•••-e----,oc--~·~. _~·---~ --~-----.----·-··•----·-·-----.-,_,

!:,. ' . ' ·_ '

. ' .
. .
; '
:

..:· -- - " !ii'llh

 •

To

tJ
From ,~.D. FITZROY Date J - J7 - &- y--
lP
lJ
' [l
' _J
tq
L-
'I -I
I
I
J

(!1
ILl
I;

l.
I
=--

L
[
~
It
- -----~
"-'7"'"1'"_'
'
--
 . . .
'
' . ~

. '

- . - -- ·.

--
 , J'' :I

---~-
c, '

.. -'
.
.
' ''

,, . ' .~

·.· . . ~ . ;" ~~ ..

Two General Electric STAG 307 combined-cycle power plants in electric utili·
ty service for Taiwan Power Company, Tunghsiao, Taiwan. Each plant con-
sists of the following GE equipment: three MS7001 gas turbines each driving a
generator; three heat recovery steam generators; one steam turbine driving a
generator; plu~ related controls. Each plant is site rated at approximately 290 mW.

(;
General Electric offers a wide variety of heavy-duty and aircraft-
General
I
derivative gas turbines for industrial and electric utility applications.
,[Electric
•
Incorporating advanced technology which has resulted in increas-
ed efficiencies, cycles, and greater fuel flexibility~ the GE product
, Looks to ~ine now shows a power range of approximately 10,000-107,000
kW for generation and 14,000-45,000 hp for mechanical-drivl~
'The Future units.
General Electric's full product line of gas turbines is available for
[--:With combined-cycle applications. This includes high-efficiency systems
from 20 mW to 600 mW. These plants are gaini'ng rapid,
· Htgh Technology widespread acceptance for base and intermediate load utility use,
1Gas Turbine as well as in process industries and cogeneration applications.
GE gas turbines have accumulated more than 100 million hours
Systems of operating service - exceeding the combined operating ex-
perience of all other major worldwide competitor§). With over 3,500
gas turbines shipped, GE continues to look for improved
technology by implementing development programs for both the
short- and lcmg-te~rm needs of the industry.
Extensive experience with a wide range of conventional fuels
provides an excellent basis for continued development in the coal·
derived fuels area. Capabilities to use both coal-deriv~d liquids and
r: gases from various processes are being developed.
I General Electric is participating in the $300 million Cool Water
project with other participants, including EPRI, to build the nation's
first large·scale power plant for converting coal to a clean gas to
drive a STAG* combined-cycie system of steam and gas turbines
to produce 100,000 kW of electricity. The Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC) concept has the potential of becoming the

f' lowest-cost, most efficient and environmentally clean way of using

coal in power generation.
General Electric's advanced-technology gas turbines could be
the answer to some of the pressing problems you may face in the
•
l months and years ahead.
"Trademark of General Electric Co., USA. I
1

>~·==
~
 'I APPLICATION FLEXIBILITY PIPELINE SERVICE-one of the varied industrial appli-
cations for the LM2500 gas turbines, which are designed
to deliver over 30,000 hp.
The GE gas turbine product line is ideally suited to meet a variety
of applications such as base load, peak load, emergency standby,
mid-range, and combined-cycle operation. Package power plar.!$

~
are completely engineered and integrated systems including con-
trols, auxiliaries, ducting, and silencing. And gas path cooling
systems are incorporated for higher cycle temperatures. Axial-

II flow compressors allow tow maintenance and high performance

levels.

PIPELINE

Over 850 GE;-designed heavy-duty gas turbines have been ship-

ped for pipeline appl-ications throughout the world. The units have

I accumulated over 38 million hours of operation with over 11

million total horsepower.

SIX M5iS001 heavy--duty gas turbines supply process

PROCESS DRIVES power al this Alaskan LNG plant.

Over 375 GE-designed heavy-duty gas turbines are also used for
process compressor drives. Processes include ammonia,
ethylene, petroleum refining, oxygen, methanol synthesis, LNG,
gas stripping! and many others. Industrial process plants which
use GE heavy-duty gas turbine units can take advantage of their
[ wide range of fuel flexibility-gaseous and liquid-up to tri-fuel
capability in some cases.

OFFSHORE PLATFORMS

GE-designed heavy-duty and aircraft-derivative gas turbines con-

tribute to the development of offshore oil and gas fields by driving
t process and pipeline compressors and pumps fo'r platform ap-
plications. These installations number over 100 to date, spanning
SIX LM2500 gas turbine systems on platform in North
Sea. (Photo courtesy Statoil)
nearly all of GE's product line. The aircraft-derivative LM2500 is
lightweight and provtdes high efficiency in a small plot area, with
minimum installa\\ion and change-out time.

POWER GENERATION

General Electric simple-cycle package power plants rang~ from

24 to 75 mW base in 60 Hz service to 107 mW base in 50 Hz. A
range of STAG combined-cycle systems from 100 to over 650 mW
is also available. GE units may be barge-mounted for location
flexibility and easy removal with maximum silencing and en- GE STAG 607 combined-cycle plant with dual fuel

I vi ron mental compatibility.

Today, more than 2280 GE gas turbines are in peaking, mid-
capability-oil and gas.

~o_·. range~ and base load operation for electric utility and industrial

.r' power generation applications.

If you would like more information on what General Electric gas ~ ELE~e!T~delma~"'
GENERAL W
turbines can offer you, call or write your local GE sales engineer. . "
l U.S.A
3

--
 General Electric Company
GAS TURBINE DIVISION, SCHENECTADY, N.Y. 12345, U.S.A.

I. OPERATING EXPERIENCE
•
GE-DESIGNEC MEAVY-DUTY GAS TURBINES

UNITS SHIPPED THROUGH JANUARY 1, 1983

APPLICATION UNITS
KW HP HOURS*

ll ELECTRIC UTILITY 1,841

(000)

50,869
(000)

-
(000)

28,275 €'
-
l.l INDPWRGEN
PROCESS
440

3n
9,349

- 6,333
18,875

17,840

GAS/OIL PIPELINE 863 - 11,503 37,927

(' TRANSPORTATION 47 - 470 1,545
~

TOTAL 3,568 60,218 18,306 104,462

•estimated

LM2500 GAS TURBINE SYSTEM EXPERIENCE

GE-DESIGNED SYSTEMS SHIPPED THROUGH JANUARY 1, 1983

""""""'
APPLICATION UNITS RATING APPLICATION UNITS RATING

LAND BASED PLATFORM

~Gas/Oil Transmission -Mechanical Drive

• USA/Canada 1 24,642 HP •USA 1 24,642 HP

• Mexico 4 88,960 HP •North Sea 6 144,225 HP

• Europe 3 82,500 HP • Middle East 2 5S,OOO HP

I • Africa 3 82,500 HP·

- ~nd Pwr Gen - Power Generation

•USA 5 88,168 KW •North Sea 4 76,000 KW

- -
16 278,602HP 13 223,867 HP
[ 88,168 KW 76,000 KW

'

•
TOTALS 29 UNITS
( 502, 4§9 HP
164,168 KW
(
r
I l
.
.. ..~·-----~-~·
-~- '

>,

HEAVY-DUTY GAS TURBINE DESIGN FEATURES
General Electric experience-proven gas turbines com-
bine sound design with quality controlled manufacturing tech-
niques in producing the world's most reliable units for industrial
and utility power generation, and mechanical drive application.
'~II
r·
I
I
ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT
1. Dies.sf Fuel Tank--Clea~out port.
I 2. Base-Mounted Auxiliaries-Factory installed and tested.
3. ~u!)e Oil Heat E~chllnger-Single or twin coolers available.
4. Lube Oil Heat Exchanger Temperatuie Regulating Valve.
5. Auxiliary Lube Oil Pumps-Variety of pumps and drives to
meet individual requirements.
6. Diesef Er;gine Starting Device- Black start capability.
7. TQfq~ Converter with hydraulic ratchet.
8. Accessory Gear-Provides auxiliary drives for main lube
oil pump, hydraulic suppiy pump, atomizing air compressor,
fuel pump, water pump, and special accessories if required.
9. Accessory r..wpling.
10. Atomizing ~~r Pr&OOOier.
( 11. Atomizing Air Pre-cooler Temperatur·e Regulating Valve.
COMPRESSOR
12. Radial Inlet Casing- Provides uniform flow to compressor.
13. Thrust and Journal Bearing Assembly-All bearings steel-
backed, tin babbitted, and pressure lubricated.
14. Seventeenestage Axial Flow Compressor-Expe-
rience proven for long life in varied types of service and
~nvironment.
15. Variable Inlet Guide Vanes-Primary function to protect
compressor from surge during startup, and also used to
maintain high exhaust temperature at part load ir1 heat re-
covery applications.
16. Compressor Wheel Construction-Wheels of individual co~
. tour forgings.
11: Rim Glaa;ancs=-f!iOtects iotor from distortion during ab-
normal operating conditions.
I 18. Through-bolt Construction-Eliminates balance problems
and strengthens the rotor.
STATOR CASINGS
I 19. Horizontally split on centerline to facilitate maintenance.
20. Compressor Forward Casing,
tf
21. Compressor Aft Casing.
22. Compressor Discharge Casing.
23. Inlet OrientaUon-Available for side or overhead arrange-
ment.
r.
The illustration below shows the arrangement for General
Electric.'s Model Series 6001, simple-cycle, single-sh~ft gas
turbine and notes some of the unit's major design features.
l
1;,
COMBUSTION
24. Fuel Nozzle-Gas, oil, dual fuel, and air-atomizing liquid
fuel nozzles available for greater operational flexibility.
25. Reverse-flow Combustion System- Designed for improved
life, ease of maintenance, and efficient operation.
0
26. Transitioo piece configuration distributes combustor dis-
charge gases to provide even temperatures entering the
turbine, thus extending nozzle and bucket life.
• 27. Combustion Casing.
TURBINE
28. Nozzle Design-Increased nozzle life achieved by passing
cooling air through nozzle body.
.29. Thr~stage Turbine Rotor Assembly- Designed for high-
efficiency operation, with conservative metal temperatures
in rotating components.
30. Long Shank Buckets-Isolate wheel rim from hot gas path
to reduce wheel temperatures, and provide vibration
damping.
31. Wheel Cooling-Complete turbine wheel cooling and mea"
surement of Wheel space cooling air temperature gives
continuous monitoring for additional safety and reliability.
EXHAUST
32. Temperature Measurement-:~ Using separate exhaust ther-
mocouples connected to two separate monitoring systems
allows constart monitoring and protective alarm and trip
functions.
33, Exhat.~St Diffuser.
34. Exhaust Orientation-side or overhead arrangements avail-
able.
OTHER
35. Load Coupling-Rigid coupling arrnagement for connec-
tion to load gear.
36. Guarded Oil Piping-For maximum safety, rigid steel piping
is used for high-pressure oil lines, and lccated inside oil
return lines or inside the oil tank where possible.
5
 L
~?/j
11
] ~
\ \ Y\
General Electric Company
.~/
\; GAS TURBINE DIVISION, SCHENECTADY, N.Y. 12345, U.S.A.

I MODEL USE STATUS

NORMAL
Power Rating (2)

Heat Rate hp, mw

MAXIMUM

Heat
COMPRESSOR
- SHAFT

Compr. Turb.
•
J hp, mw (1) or lbt Rate (1) Stages Stage&

1. MECHANICAL-DRIVE GAS TURBINES (3)

M3142 MD PO 14,600 hp 9530 - - 15 1

M5251 MD PO 25,000 hp 9640 - - 16 -
I M5262(A)
M5352(B)
MD
MD
PO
PO
26,250
35,000
hp
hp
9780
8830
-
-
-
-
15
16
1
1
M3132R MD PO 14,000 hp 7410 - - 15 1
M5252R(A) MD PO 25,200 hp 7390 - - 15 1
I M5322R(B)
LM2500-20
MD
MD
PO
PO
32,000
17,600
hp
hp
7070
7565
-
-
-
-
16
16
1
2
LM2500-30 MD PO 29,500 hp 7085 - - 16 2
- -
I
LM5000 MD PO 44,700 hp 7020 19 3

GAS TURBINE GENER!\ TOR SETS (4)

G3142 \i PO 10.2 mw 13,540 - - 15 1

I G5261
G3132R
LM2500-20
G
G
G
PO
PO
PO
18.9 mw
9.75 mw
12.86 mw
13,400
10,500
10,420
-
-
-
-
-
-
16
15
16
-
1
2
LM2500-30 G PO 21.56 mw 9,760 - - 16 2

I LM5000

P,&r.KAr.s: POWER PLANTS (4

G PO 32.67 mw 9,665 - - 19 3

-
I PG5361

PG6521(B)
PG

PG
PO

PO
24.8

35.86
mw

mw
12,450

11.280
26.62

38.95 mw
mw 12,340

11,180
17

17 -
J: PG7111(E) PG PO 75.0 mw 10,790 81.15 mw 10,750 17 -

-
I PG9151(E) PG PO 1013.7 mw 10,850 115.9 mw 10,810 17

COMBINED-CYCLE PLANTS WITH UNFlRED HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS (4, 5, 6, 1)

I ·!j
STAG 205P PG PO 67.4 mw 8,700 - - 17 -
STAG 405P PG PO 138.4 mw 8,700 - - 17 -
I STAG 206B PG PO 9&.2 mw 8,070 - - 17 -

I ,.~
STAG 406B PG PO 192.4 mw 8,070 - .,. 17 -

STAG 107E PG PO 99.3 mw 7,700 - - 17 -

.
I
.

,(,
STAG 407E PG PO 396.7 mw 7,650 - - 17 -

STAG 109E PG PO 140.4 mw ·- - -

I
7,940 17

PO - - -
•
STAG 409E PG 564.7 mw 7,890 17
1
I .
~ SYMBOLS:
G=Generator Drive
MD=Mechlnical Drive
!TAG=Combined steam and
gas turbine-gener•tor
PP.,In Production
PG=Package Power Pt•nt
METRIC CONVERSION:
To convert from:
multiply
to:
~
degrees F•renheit

I Ratings are subJect to change without notice. For current rating Information,
t;enaUlt yo1,1rlocal GE sales repreeentattw.
Inch
pound
-32 degr&a Colslus
meter
kilogram
0.5556
O.Q254
0.4536
 DIM ENS liONS
POWER SHAFT EXHAUST (inch')
Press. . Heat Dry -
Ratio No. Weight
(8) Comb.· Exch. (lb) -
Turb. Flow Temp.
Stages RPM lb/sec. oF L w H

. '
'
1 6,500 7.1 6 115 979 - 120,000 420 130 144
2 4,860 7.5 10 202 976 - 165,000 458 130 150
I 1 4,670 6.7 12 215 975 - 253,000 600 130 150
If:

, -
1 4,670 8.6 12 268 915 257,000 600 130 150
1 6,500 7.3 6 115 6£3 REGEN 120,000 420 130 144
1 4,670 6.9 \ 12 215 638 REGEN 253,000 600 130 150
1 4,670 8.2 12 250 667 REGEN 257,000 600 130 150
6 3,000. 14.8 1 124.9 n5 - 52,000 333 110 139
6 3,6JO •o 18.7 1 147.5 955 - 52,000 333 110 139
3 3,600
10
30.0 1 274.1 792 - 88,500 441 126 150

1 6,500 7.1 6 115 979 - 242,000 165 130 150

2 5,100 8.0 10 213 955 - 318,000 816 126 150
1 6,500 7.3 6 115 668 REGEN 242,000 765 130 150
6 3,000' 14.8 1 124.8 788 - 220,000 633 135 150
6 3,600 10 18.7 1 147.4 973 - 220,000 633 135 150
I 3 3,600 10 30.0 1 273.6 807 - 314,200 1,173 126 150
E

2 5,105 10.1 10 267 919 - 570,000 1,305 353 385

10.3 966
3 5,105 11.7 10 301 1020 - 630,000 1,462 353 430
11.9 1083
3 3,600 11.7
11.9
10 609 999
1063
- 1,070,000 1,454 770 384

3 3,000 11.6
11.8
14 877 972
1034
- 1,400,000 1,470 930 455

2 5,105 10.1 20
10/TB
Total
534
919 Boiler - - - -
2 5,105 10.1 40
10/TB
Total
1068
919 Boiler - - - -
.
3 5,105 11.7 20
10/TB
Total
608
1020 Boiler - - - -
3 5,105 11.7 40 Total 1020 Boiler - - - -
. 10/TB 1216
3 3,600
.
11.7 10
10/TH
614 999 Boiler - - - ~

3 3,600 11.7 40
10/TB
Total
2456
999 Boiler - - - -
3 3,000 11.6 14
14/TB
877 972 Boiler - - - -
!11
3 3,000 11.6- 56 Total 972 Boiler - - - -
q; FOOTNOTES:
14/TB

1. Heat Rates: (!as Fuel: 21,510 BtU/lb. LH-t, Olatlllate Fuel = 18,550 Btu/lb. LHV
3508

STAG 107E - One PG711 1 (E); STAG 407E- Four PG711 1 (E)'s
STAG 109E- One PG9151 (e); STAG 409E- Four PG9151 (E)'s
2. Raliflgs are at International Standards Organization (I.S.O.) Conditions: Sea Level 11. Ratings are with HHV and tnclude both steam and gas turbines
and 15° C, 59° F. Normal Is base rating and Maxtmum la peak rating. 7. Aepresonlatlve STAG configurations are fisted; however. other combinations of gas

l 3, Ratings are for natural gas fuel.

4, Rattngs are for distillate fuel.
5. STAG plants each have one steam turbine wlth the following gas IUrblnes:
STAG 205P- Two PG5361's: STAG ~P- Four PG5361 's
STAG 2069- Two PG6521 (B)'s: STAG <406B- Four PG6521 (B)'s
a.
t.
10,
turbines for 50 H~ or 60 Ht are available.
Where two ratios are indicated, the lop is for normal rating snd the bot1om for max•
lmum raling.
Also available at 3600 rpm
AlllO available at 3000 rpm 7
I
j'

·.. --·-·~--------------.....---~"-··-----·---·-··~-~-~-----,.---.,--·-~'<"""~---·--·~-
.,:·.
(
-;
.;: :- .~
. -

-..-·------'-· _____.::-.::~.t~:.:::~_..:~.::.:::..:.:_:_~-~~!J f --- ki'" r i'idAii:V·~-:-~--~--~·---~~:~~.:C-~-~-~---~~--811
General Electric Company
GAS TURBINE DIVISION, SCHENECTADY, N.Y. 12345, U.S.A.
I The General Electric P·roduct Line
I
IL
J
li
The various General Electric gas turbines fall into two
major categories-single-shaft, and two-shaft machines.
In single-shaft models the compressor and turbine
stages are all mechanically connected and operate at a
common speed. Single-shaft models have been widely
used as generator drives.
In two-shaft models the high-pressure or axial com-
pressor drive turbine and the low-pressure turbine are
I mechanically separated, which permits the two-shaft
J'. machines to operate efficiently at various speeds and
load levels. These models have Wide application as com-
pressor drivers and in other mechanical drive applica-
tions where a wide speed range is desirable for the load
device.
SINGLE-SHAFT
Our single-shaft heavy-duty gas turbines are available
)f with ISO base ratings ranging from about 19,000 kW to
i07,000 kW.
1. MS5001-Two models are available. One is base-
rated at about 25,000 kW for both industrial and elec-
tric utility power generation. The other, rated at 19,000
kW, is used in process industries as a generator or
-,-11
' ·l cc.npressor drive. It is designed with a 5,100 rpm shaft
speed for generator drive or 4,860 rpm for compressor
drive applications.
2. MS6001-This model is base rated at over 36,000
kW. Available for 50 or 60 Hz generation service, the
MS6001 is scaled up in power and efficiency from the
performance-proven MS5001 and incorporates design
improvements from the MS7001.
3. MS7001-Base rated at 75,000 kW for electric utility
application, this 3,600 rpm design is also used for in-
dustrial power generation service around the world.
4. MS9001-This is a scaled-up version of the
MS7001, and is designed for 50 Hz generation service.
It is rated at approximately 107,000 kW.
___ ' J.
8
r
,,,,,,,,~,,/'~--
'
-·
'
•
TWO-SHAFT
The second category of General Electric gas turbines
•·~·
is the product line of two-shaft designs. These units are
available with ISO ratings ranging from 14,000 hp to
45,000 hp.
5. MS3002-This model has benefited from many im-
provements since its introduction a quarter-century
ago. A standard around the wor~d, it is now rated at
14,600 hp at 6,500 rpm.
6. LM2500 (aircraft derivative)-This light-weight in-
dustrial gas turbine power system is available in
ratings of 29,500 hp and 21,560 k\~. It is especially
suited for applications where high eff'iciency plus high
power-to-weight ratio are important considerations,
0
such as offshore platform applications.
7. MS5002-A rugged, reliable and efficient gas tur-
bine, this model benefits from the design and operating
experience of its predecessor, the MS3002. Rated
from 26,250 to 35,000 hp, the MS5002 serves deman-
ding power requirements around the world. It meets
stringent international shipping requirements due to its
modular construction.
8. LM5001l (aircraft derivative)-This latest addition to
the product line combines the latest technology in ad-'
vanced cooling with corrosion-resistant materials and
coatings. Available in 44,700 hp and 32,670 kW, the ('
LM5000 gas turbine power system achieves an ex-
tremely low heat rate usually available only in more
complex cycles.
Gas turbines available through General Electric
represent a broad spElctrum of prime movers-the
most complete line ava lable from any manufacturer in
the world. General Electric offers a selection of ther-
•
modynamic cycles in all units. This incudes simple,
regenerative, and combined cycles which use steam
and gas turbines.
 r r-----~-
1. ---~-,2.
Single-shaft Product Line

~~ ~p
ft
H~---------M_o_d_e_ls_e_r_ie_s_s_o_o1__________~----------M--od_e_l_s_e_rie_s_s_o_o_1___________,
3.
'ff: t
G; ~.·

f
f: Mgdel Series 7001

f 4.

f
,__ ~·
((!; I
f
Model Series 9001
l!L----------------
Two-shaft Product Line
I
L
6.

Model Series 3002 LM2500 System

~ 8.

I,
, Model Series 5002 LMSOOO System
lI

.....
-
 ·I!
t
General ElectriC Company I
[
GAS TURBINE DIVISION, SCHENECTADY, N. Y. 12345, U.S.A.

•
1

Worldwide Service
- I
General Electric provides a gas turbine service the Division's parts warehouses in Schenectady, New
package that includes a number of specialized pro-
grams, worldwide capability, full spectrum coverage
York and Gii'~nville, South Carolina, USA. A substan-
tial reserve of expendable parts in common demand
I
!
for installation, maintenance and repair, and technical and major components are provided for both normal Ir
support, as well as strategically located Service Shops maintenance, as well as emergency back·up. I
I
and the warehousing of parts for fast turnaround.
The gas turbine service package consists of:
• Technical support by the Gas Turbine Division ser·
General Electric
Gas Turbine
e I
1
l

vice organization. Service Shops

• Field supervision by the Apparatus and Engim~ering
Services Operations (A&ESO), the General Electric USA:
Technical Service$ Company, Inc., (GETSCO), and Chicago, Illinois
Canadian General Electric (CGE). Cincinnati, Ohio
• Equipment repair and skilled labor from A&ESO
.r
Fenton (St. Louis}, Missouri
.
Service Shops. Houston, Texas
• Renewal parts wrxehousing by the Gas Turbine Jacksonville, Florida
Division and selected Service Shops. Kenai, Alaska
Los Angeles, California
World\tVide Availability New Orleans, Louisiana
In addition, the Division provides gas turbine main· New York, New York

•
tenance seminars to bring customer engineers and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
managers together with General Electric experts in Ponce (Puerto Rico)
design, installation, and maintenance. In this way, Salt Lake City, Utah
customers are kept informed of the latest maintenance
practices and tl3chniques. International:
Gas turbine specialists are available worldwide to
Buenos Aires (Argentina)
assist customers with planning original installations,
provide maintenance program advice and assist in Bahrain (Middle East)
Basildon (England)
troubleshooti'lg. A&ESO, GETSCO, and CGE field
supervi~ors are av~ilable to work with these
Dammam (Saudi Arabia)
Maracaibo (Venezuela)
specialists.
Singapore
Renewal parts
Strategically located Gas Turbine Service Shops main·
tam a considerable inventory of rer-:ewal parts. These
stocks are backed up by a large. stock maintained in

•
... .. .. ...
--.........---~-· -~ -~~,----~~.- ~~.--- ···-~--~ -.,

1i
.;
t

611jDi4 PtM~
~~ Facilities
GENERAL ELECTRIC CONTINUES ITS WORLDW!DE LEADERSHIP IN MANUFACTUR!NG
AND DEVELOPMENT .
ff
Generaf Electric's manufacturing facilities in Schenectady,
New York and Greenville, South Carolina are the world's
largest exclusively devoted tc the design, manufacture and
testing of gas turbines. The aircraft-derivative engines for the

n LM2500 and LM5000 industrial gas turbine packages are pro-

•r
duced in General Electric's Evendale, Ohio facility. The stan-
dardized products manufactured in these plants permit the use
of specially designed machine tools and mass production GE's Gas Turbine Development Lab. The two-story,
techniques, while retaining the arrangement flexibility to meet 42,000 sq. foot structure houses six laboratories: Com-
bustion, Rotor Dynamics, Hot Gas Facility, Fuels and
specific customer requirements. GE gas turbine manufacturing
Corrosion. Mechanical Components, and Advanced
capabilities serve the utility and industrial markets with over 60 Control Development.
million kW and 18 million hp installed.

Turbine Technology Laboratory, Schenectady N.Y.--

I one of the largest R&D efforts devoted to the constant im-

provement of power generation equipment. The Turbine
Technology Lab is dedicated to the advancement of
The GE gas turbine manufacturing facility in Schenectady, New York pro- technologies in materials and processes through applied
duces units rated up to 50,000 hp to serve industrial and utility markets research and development. Among projects the lab
i
'
worldwide. undertakes is measurement of perfonnance of gas tur-
bines in the field to identify any possible problems.

~
.••
·~'" ~
!
·~
/

"_..,.
.
... · .
'
.

The GE .Greenville, South Carolina facility produces the MS7001 60Hz and
the MS9001 50Hz gas turbine package pow~r plants.

GE's ~rporate Research and Development Center,

The LM2500 and LMSOOO aircraft-derivative gas turbines are built in GE's
Evendale, Ohio complex.
Schenectady, N.Y. Among its many activities and pro-
jects, CAD has a fully operational research facility
capable of simulating the operation of an advanced-
design power plant that would make clean, efficient use
of coal. The facility contains the essential technical
elements of an advanced coal-fueled power generating
system known as the integrated gasification combined
cycle (IGCC).

11

_j
 ·~.-,
i:

.l'll~.\ •

(
F' I
•
General Electric Company
Gas Turbine Divi~ion
One River Road
Schenectady, New Y.ork 12345 USA

International Trading Operations

570 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022 USA

I.
Canadian General Electric Company
1900 Eglinton Avenue, East
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
•
I
l

GEA-8176 R
_GENERAL. ELECTRIC
U.S.A.
•
I= 3/83 8M

r
'
---=----,~-~·---··-······-·-
·'
.. ----~-
r-·.··=·
 (3fif TURBINE REFERENCE LIBRARY

Q --,
. . J'.-j .....
· PouJer f~!Jrtemf a '
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................. ·········· .... ······

PAGE
1
I
METHODS OF ECONOMIC SELECTION
f · STAG Combined-Cycle OF GENERATING UNITS .............................
GENERATION SYSTEM f~ELIABILITY ...........
2
3
f .Plants in Power Generation RELIABILITY EVALUATIONS ............ ._...........
SYSTEM EFFICIENCY AND TOTAL
4

::. · Planning Analysis SYSTEM COST..............................................

MIXED PATTERN GENERATION ...................
6
7
'tr ~.
•r'
SUMMARY ........................................................ 10

A TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS IS

INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS PUBLICATION

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation and selection of 'future electric utility

Bjorn M. Kaupang
Manager-Generation Planning and Economics
Electric Utility Systems Engineering Department
Schenectady, New York
generation expansions are challenging and complex tasks
of the generation planners. The most impmtant factors in·
eluded in the planning process are power plant capital
cost, thermal efficifmcy and reliabllity both for the existing
power system and 'for the future generation options. These
factors, coupled with the forecasted energy and peak de-
mand, the criterion for overall system reliability and future
financial and economic factors, will determine the proper
future generation plan.

Combined-cycle STAG• power plants have several ad·

vantages with 'respect to many of the generation planning
factors, and the purpose of this paper is to describe some
of the current generation planning methodologies and, by

I GENERAL fl) ELECTRIC numerical examples, illustrate how a STAG power plant is
an economic choice for addition to a utility power system .

•• ~· Copyright© 1983 by General Electric co. Printed ;n USA

*Trademark of General Electric Company, U.S.I.l..

I__
,
 "i" ·." -. ·~' ~ i_,
~. '.::~: ~

METHODS OF ECONOMIC SELECTION OF estimated annual operation and maintenance costs. This

GENERATING UNITS
Detailed Simulation Studies
There is general agreement that the correct criterion for
the economic selection of a generating unit is that its cost,
when combined with the costs of other generating units
making up a total electric utility generating system, should
result in minimum cost of electricity. The established
method of checking this criterion is to simulate the total
utility system cost over a period of time which represents
a major fraction of the life of the unit being considered.
The first step in this process is to define alternate ex pan·
sions of the system capacity which will have equal
reliability in serving thf~ forecasted load. Annual produc-
tion costs (fuel, operation and maintenance) are deter-
mined by detaile.c.f simulation methods. To these costs are
added annual fixed '~harges on investment, giving total an-
nua.l revenue n3quirements.
•
total is then divided by the annual kilowatt-.hours
generated.
This can be done for any kind of generating unit, but the
resulting ratio, mills/kWh, is of no value in comparing
alternate generating units unless the following criteria
hold true:
• Alternate units should have equal MW rating, equal
unit reHability and equal capacity factor.
• Alternate units should also have equal ability to
start, stop and follow tne utility load demand cur;e.
The above criteria, ifstrictly applied, would make it im-
possible to use busbar energy cost for evaluating pur-
poses. However, for units whose characteristics are
known to be reasonably similar, this method can be
helpful in preliminary analysis.
The busbar energy cost method is used in a subsequent
paragraph to illustrate mixed pattern generation.

r
.
'
Tile e:xpansion having lowest present worth of revenue
requirements is the economic choice. In this method it is
not necessary tC"J make any assumptions about the opera-
tion of the unit in question, that being determined by the
Screening Curves

Screening curves are most frequently used for com-

simu~ation process.
Figure 1 shows a simplifie:d block diagram of a typical
generation planning simulation model. In this program, the
r1
Ji
three basic generation planning calculations are linked
togettler with optimization logic, making it possible to pro-
duce up to a 30-year optimum generation expansion.
parison of generating units with widely different economic
and operating characteristics, making the busbar energy
cost method inapplicable. The screening curve is a
$traight line showing total annual unit cost in $/kW/yr as a
function of annual operating hours. Two principal parts
make up the annual unit cost: the fixed costs and the
costs varying with operating hours. The fixed costs in-
*"'
"'
clude the fixed charges on investment and certain

r f3usbar Energy Cost

The most common simplified evaluation method is the

calculation of unit generation cost, sometimes called
E '. busbar energy cost. This method adds up the annual fixed
chargfJS on the unit's investment, the annual fuel cost at
ful1 load, heat rate at an assumed capacity factor and the
operating and maintenance costs. The variable costs con-
sist of the fuel costs and the variable portion of operation
and maintenance costs.
Figure 2 shows screening curves in $/kW/yr as a func-
tion of annual operating hours for residual oil· fired steam,
residual oil-fired STAG combined-cycle, and distillate oil-

~J'

OPTIMUM GENERATION SCREENING CURVES

PLANNING 1983 LEVELIZED DOLLARS
$/KWIYR .
UPAI0$10111 GUIOUIIOU UISTING I COIIIIITTfD
O"!"A TIIOG "UlU a GEIOUIATIOII AIOO 600
!CDIOOIIIC PAIIAMrTEIIS • ~ fU7U"E lOAD O[IIAIOOS
;
500
IIIUIA81LITT .

IIIO~~~~~WE~T J JT +
IIUT
400

• GEIIf"ATION Y(AII
I I'AODUCliOIO I
COSTING
OPTION
.! 300

TOTA~ ""~L;;..c_os_:r -+-•_ _,J 200

ADD MIN COST TTP£

30 Tf.\11 !oST FO" 100

OI'TIIIUII UI'AII$1011
0101111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 H!YR (1000al
GTD4171.l

2
Figure 1 Figure 2

•
I-
·-
r
,
' fired simple-cycle gas turbines. The cost data used,
shown in Table 1, refer to 1983 and are considered typical.
Since the impact of a generation addition should be
measured over the useful life of the equipment, it is recom-
mended that levelized values for fuel and other yearly
operating expenses be used. incorporating the effects of
future lnflatior. and the time value· of money.
As an example, the screening curve for steam-oil could
be ~efined by two points, at zero and 3QO() hours per year.
At zero hours, the value is $840 x 0.16 = $134.4/kW/year.
The value at 3,000 hours is $134.40 + (9320 Btu/kWh x
~.50/MBtu X 1.537 X 10·6 X 3000) + ($3.0 X 1.537 X
10-3 x 3000) =
$341.60/kW/year.
Screening curves are quite useful as a preliminary
evaluation tool to study future generation additions. The
,11
f
data needed as shown in Table 1 are relatively simple to
obtain. The assumptions about the fixed charge rate and
~·'
probability of generation outages and the uncertainty of
the peakload forecast several years in advance.
Generation system reliability is commonly calculated by
power system planners in urilts of average or expected
days per year in which the generaUon capacity is less than
the daily peak hourly integrated load. This generation
system reliability measure is also called loss-Of-load pro·
bability (LOLP). This method has been rathe!" extensively
used in many countries and is almost always used in the
United States.
Loss-of-Load Probability Method
The first step in the calculation of generation system
reliability is the calculation of all possible combinations of
generating unit unplanned outages. The possibility of
some combinations of generating unit outages, such as
all units out of service, will be admittedly small. However, t
[

future inflation are important, but the calculation pro-
cedure is simple enough to incorporate uncertainty in the
assumptions by a parametric approach.
As the name implif:)s, the most useful aspect of these
curves is their ability to "screen out" alternat.es that are
not economically viable. Oil-fired steam, in this example,
does not appear with the lowest total cost for any
operating hour assumption, and would not be considered
[ an economic candidate for expansion.
on the days .some units are out of service for planned
maintenance, the possibility of not being able to serve the
load demand increases because some of the remaining
units are experiencing unplanned outages.
The outage probability of each generating unit can be
either estimated from the total utility industry experience
or a utility's own experience. The United States utilities
have reported total industry experience in an Edison Elec-
tric Institute publication called the Report on Equipment
Availability. The USA National Electric Reliability Council

•
fl
Table 1

GENERAl. COST DATA IN 1983 DOLLARS

Plant Heat Fuel

has recently acquired the responsibility for reporting
equipment availability from the Edison Electric Institute.

The measure of unit outage probability is the

forced outage rate (FOR). The definition of FOR is shown
Cost Rate O&M Cost in Fig. 8.
$/kW Btu/kWh mills/kWh $/MBtu
840 As an c:.id to understanding what percentage forced
Steam Residual Oil 9,320 3.0 4.50
STAG Residual Oil 510 8,590 4.0 4.50 outage rate really is, one can consider the rolling of dice
GT Distillate Oil 200 11,500 5.0 6.00 as an example. The total possible number of different ar-
rangements of the two dice when throwing dice is 36
Fixed Charges Rate 16%
Inflation 6%

r Present Worth Rate

Levelized Factor

t6% Inflation, 20 Years

10%
1.537t
FORCED OUTAGE RATE
(EEl DEFINITION)

F.O.R, : FORCED OUTAGE HOURS

The significance of tl1e ranges in which the alternates F.O.H +SERVICE HOURS
appear to be the most economic is not as distinct as the FORCED OUTAGE· CANNOT BE DEFERRED BEYOND
NUT WEEKEND
screening out process, although for the example shown, i~
app~ars certain that STAG combined cycles and gas tur- IN PROBABILITY STUDIES:
f.O.ft: PROBABILITY THAT A UHIT WILL HOT BE
bines should be part of the optimum composition of the AY.t.ILABLE WHEN NEEDED FOR LOAD
OR
sample system. FRACTIOH OF DEIUND TIME
1.1Nif P<OT AY.t.ILABI.E

'GENERATION SYSTEM RELIABILITY

The firstquestion involved in planning or expanding an

electric utility generating system is how much .generation
is needed to meet a given load forecast, considering the Figure 3

~ ,.;;"---··-,.-.
l --
~ -
 Therefore, the probability of rolling 12, which is just one of LOLP is used to determine how much generation capac-

the possible outcomes, is 1/36 or 2.8 percent. That means
that 2.8 percent of the time dice are rolled, you expect to
roll a 12. Similarly, a generating unit having a large number
of servi9e hours per year (baseload service) and having a 6
percent. FOR, means that 6 percent of the time this
generating unit is called for, it is on forced outage. Hence,
in generation system reliability analyses, it is acceptable
to use the forced outage rate as an estimate of the percen-
tage of .demand time a baseload unit is unexpectedly
rr unavailable.
The Meaning of Loss-of-Load Probability
The reliability of the generating system is the proba-
bility that it will ser1e all of the load demand all of the time.
•
ity addition is required to satisfy a load increase forecast.
This is accomplished by selecting a particular days/year
LOLP as a design criterion, then calculating the required
generating capacit_y addition such that. the LOLP criterion
is satisfied. This process is shown in Fig. 4 where a design
LOLP of 1.0 days per year is selected. With no generation
addition, LOLP would increase more ~han 10 times if the
following year's load forecast were to hold true.
The LOLP method can also serve as a means for evalu-
ating differences in unit forced outage rate, unit rating,
and unit modular arrangement. This is accomplished, after
selecting an LOLP criterion, by calculating the effect on
system reliability of various alternatives.
One measure of the effect of an individual unit addition

r This probability is a function of the forced outage rate and

size of each generating units the need for maintenance, in-
stalled reserve capacity and the shape of the load demand
curve. loss-of-load probability (LOLP) is the measurement
to a system is the term unit load carrying capability or unit
effective capacity. This term is illustrated in Fig. 5. The an·
nual peak load in the year 1987 at the 1.0 days/year design

r: of system reliability. LOLP is the expected number of days

per year of capacity insufficient to serve the load. LOLP is
calculated by comparing a table of all the generating unit
criterion, prior to the addition of one new unit, can be con-
sidered the system load carrying capability or system ef-
fective capacity. The system load carrying capability is, of
course, less than the installed capacity. The difference in

r
outage probabilities to a list of the daily peak loads ex-
pected in the year. After the calculation of the probability
of outage for each day, the daily probabilities are added
for the whole year.
Although LOLP is called a probability, it is really an ex-
pected value or an average value with units of days per
year. In addition, LOLP, although designated loss-of-load,
does not always imply that electric service is interrupted.
system load carrying capability before and after the in-
stallation of the new unit is the new unit's load carrying
capability. Unit toad carrying capability is likewise always
less than unit rating and varies with forced outage rate,
unit rating and modular arrangement, and the composition
of total system capacity.
A
RELIABILITY EVALUATIONS
w 0

System operators can maintain service by means of ex-

traordinary operating procedures when system-owned
capacity is less than load. In an interconnected system,
load can be supplied by using transmission lines to import
power. Other measures, such as voltage reductions, shed-
ding interruptible loads and reduction of power plant aux-
iliary load, are also used by system operators to maintain
continuity of electric service.
The LOLP system reliability technique is straightfor-
ward when applied to conventional units with only two
states: full capacity in service or all the capacity on forced
outage. For a multishaft combined-cycle unit, where part
of the total capacity would be on outage while the re-
mainder of the plant would be available for service, a more
complex, multistate model is required. Similar to com-

EXAMPLE OF THE UNIT ADDITION PROCESS EXAMPLE OF THE UNIT ADDITION PROCESS
100 100

ORIGINAL STSTEM QRIGI"AL STST£10

HEW SYSTEIO

10

LOLP ID
. I
DESIGN ..
.JI .~
I!>ATSilEARI
I I I I
CRITERION

I f I I
/ I I I
0 I I I I 0'
I I I
+ + +
I I
1981 1988 1989
AHHUAL l'f All LOAD IMWIIo GTOB179 GTOBIBO

~~-.
'l

•,
4
Figure 4 Figure 5

• (

-
r Therefore, the probability of rolling 12, which is just one of LOLP is used to determine how much generation capac-

the possible outcomes, is 1/36 or 2.8 percent. That means
that 2.8 percent of the time dice are rolled, you expect to
roll a 12. Similarly, a generating unit having a large number
of service hours per year (base load service) and having a 6
percent. FOR, means that 6 percent of the time this
generating unit is called for, it is on forced outage. Hence,
in generation system reliability analyses, it is acceptable
to use the forced outage rate as an estimate of the percen-
tage of .demand time a baseload unit is unexpectedly
unavai Iable.
The Meaning of Loss-of-Load Probability
The reliability of the generating system is the proba-
bility that it will serve all of the load demand all of the time.
This probability is a function of the forced outage rate and
ll
r size of each generating unit, the need for maintenance, in·
stalled reserve capacity and the shape of the load demand
curve. Loss-of-load probability (LOLP} is the measurement
of system reliability. LOLP is the expected number of days
per year of capacity insufficient to serve the load. LOLP is
calculated by comparing a table of all the generating unit
•
ity addition is required to satisfy a load increase forecast.
This is accomplished by selecting a particular days/year
LOLP as a design criterion, then calculating the required
generating capacity addition such that. the LOLP criterion
is satisfied. This process is shown in Fig. 4 where a design
LOLP of 1.0 days per year is selected. With no generation
addition, LOLP would increase more than 10 times if the
following year's load forecast were to hold true.
The LOLP method can also serve as a means for evalu-
ating differences in unit forced outage rate, unit rating,
and unit modular arrangement. This is accomplished, after
selecting an LOLP criterion, by calculating the effect on
system reliability of various alternatives.
One measure of the effect of an individual unit addition
to a system is the term unit load carrying capability or unit
effective capacity. This term is illustrated in Fig. 5. The an·
nual peak load in the year 1987 at the 1.0 days/year design
criterion, prior to the addition of one new unit, can be con-
sidered the system load carrying capability or system ef-
fective capacity. The system load carrying capability is, of
course, Jess than the installed capacity. The difference in

r
outage probabilities to a list of the daily peak loads ex-
pected in the year. After the calculation of the probability
of outa~Je for each day, the daily probabilities are added
for the whole year.
Although LOLP is called a probability, it is really an ex-
pected value or an average value with units of days per
year. In addition, LOLP, although designated loss-of-load,
[I does not always imply tha:t electric service is interrupted.
System operators can maintain service by means of ex-
system load carrying capability before and after the in-
stallation of the new unit is the new unit's load carrying
capability. Unit load carrying capability is likewise always
less than unit rating and varies with forced outage rate,
unit rating and modular arrangement, and the composition
of total system capacity.
A {
w
RELIABILITY EVALUATIONS

traordinary operating procedures when system-owned The LOLP system reliability technique is straightfor-
capacity is less than load. In an interconnected system, ward when applied to conventional units with only two
load can be supplied by using transmission lines to import states: full capacity in service or all the capacity on forced
power. Other measures, such as voltage reductions, shed- outage. For a multishaft combined-cycle unit, where part

: ding int.errupUble loads and reduction of power plant aux-

iliary load, are aiso used by system operators to maintain
of the total capacity would be on outage while the re-
mainder of the plant would be available for service. a more
l .
i
J continuity of electric service. complex, multistate model is required. Similar to com-

EXAMPLE OF THE UNIT ADDITION PROCESS EXAMPLE QF THE UNIT ADDITION PROCESS
100 100

ORIGtHA~ SYSTEW ORIGINAL STS~EM

fj 10

,
LOU'
l!lAYSIYEARt
TO
- T eN.~~~~ ..
I I I I
1 I I I
/ I I I
0' .. I I I 01

I
I I I
+ t +
I I I
1 ' ! I I I
1987 1988 1989
ANNUAL PEAl\ LOAD IWWr 1987 1988 1989
GTOa 119 A"NUAl P[~~ LOAD I"WI GT0818D

I
I.
{;
4
Figure 4 Figure 5

• (

-
 ,

puting all possible system generating unit states, analyz-
ing the possible states of the STAG plant modules (gas
turbines, heat recovery steam generators, and steam
turbine-generators) will result in a multiple-state outage
model of a combined-cycle plant. This model is then
reduced further to an equivalent forced outage rate as the
measure for the reliability of a multistate generation unit.
n The next paragraph wiil discuss an evaluation of dif-
ferences in generating unit reliability.
To do a more accurate and detailed investig~tion, it
would be necessary to have detailed system data, par-
ticularly outage rate data from actual operating ex-
perience.
Economic Evaluation of Differences in
fl.
Effeciive Capacity

Differences in effective capacity of generation additions

t
Example System Study
should be included in the economic evaluation of alter-
natives. It will depend on the specific utility system what the
rl
evaluated worth of onE• megawatt in effective capacity
As an example of the better load carrying capability of a
would be. In the USA, it ;.s typical to use the purchase cost
STAG combined-cycle plant when compared to a conven-

r tional steam plant with equal rating, a system study was

performed using a sample generation system. Table 2
shows the highlights of the assumed system data. The
generation alternatives compared are a 300 MW STAG
of reserve capacity fro'il a neighboring utility or to use the
installed c~~ital cost of gas turbines. Either purchase
represents the lowest capital cost of obtaining the reserve
necessary to achieve the same generation system reliability
~~n for each evaluated alternate.
plant and a 300 MW conventional steam plant.
:;
';'

The result of the comparison is shown in Table 3. The Referring to the example system study and assuming a

r system load carrying capability when adding 300 MW in a

STAG combined-cycle plant increased by 250 MW to 3450
MW. When adding 300 MW in one conventional steam unit,
the load carrying capability increased by 240 MW.
1983 value of $200/kW for reserve capacity, one finds that
the 10 MW in reserve capacity difference is worth 10,000 x
200 = 2.0 million dollars. This value amounts to about 7
$/kW based on plant rating and is a penalty to be added to

[ the estimated cost of a conventional steam plant.

,,. Table 2

SYSTEM STUDY DATA

1987 Installed Capacity Before Additions 4000 MW

Energy Value of Reliability

In addition to the capacity value of generating unit

reliability, significant energy cost savings may be obtained
by high unit reliability. During the forced outages of genera-
tion, the existing reserve capacity available will be required
1987 System Load Carrying Capacity 3200 MW
1.0 days/yr
to operate. The energy penalty for operating less efficient
Reliability Index, LOLP
capacity during forced outages of baseload units could go
UNIT DATA from about 5 mills/kWh in systems with little or no oil or
gas-fired generation, up to 30-40 mills/kWh wr,~re the unit
Rating FOR on outage is coal-fired and the replacement energy is
(MW) (%} generated by oil.
STAG Combined-Cycle 300 9.6
11.3
Assuming a desired 7000 hours per year of operation if
Conventional Steam Plant (1 Unit) 300
the forced outage rates were equal and a replacement
energy cost penalty of 20 mills/kWh in 1983 levelized
dollars, the value of the 1.7 percent difference in forced
Table 3 outage rate may be calculated as follows:

COMPARISON OF LOAD·CARRYING CAPABILITY Annual Energy Generated by the STAG Plant =

300 MW X 7000 hours =
2,100,000 MWh.
Plant System LCC
. Rating After LCC Unit
The conventional steam plant would, each year,
(MW) Original Addition (MW) (%) generate about 1.7 percent less energy than the STAG
plant due to the 1.7 percent higher forced outage rate. This
STAG Plant• 300 3200 3450 250 83.3 energy difference evaluated at a replacement energy
Conv. Steam 300 3200 3440 240 80.0 penalty cost of 20 mills/kWh will yield:
*STAG Plant Advantage 10 MW
Annual Replacement Energy = 2,100,000 MWh x
j 1.7% =35,700 MWh.
These results show a definite system reliability advan- Annual Cost Penalty of Replacement Energy =
~
tage when choosing a STAG plant over a conventional 35,700 MWh x 10·3 X 20 mills/kWh X 10·3 =
steam plant of equal rating. $714,000/year.
~ ..,.,.
5
fi
~1.
:r
!

The equivalent capital investment of an annual cost is

obtained by dividing the uniform annual cost by the fixed
charge rate. The fixed charge rate, when multiplied by in-
itial capital investment, results in the annual fixed costs of
power plant ownership exclusive of operating costs. It is a
rate which, recognizing the time value of money, includes
LOAD DURATION CURVE

1.QO
PEAK LOAD
•
80
capital recovery (return of principal plus interest charges),
"LOAD
any tax· obligation or charges to a public agency, and in- 60
surance. A typical fixed charge rate might be 16
40
percent/year based on an interest rate, or average cost of
capitaJl of 10 percent/year. 20

The capitalized value of the replacement energy penal-

, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1000
ty using a 16 percent fixed charge rate would be HRS/YR GT0811JI

$714,000 ..;. 0.16 X 10~6 = $4.5M

This is equivalent to about 15 $/kW on a 300 MW plant Figure 6
rating.
;
,r.··. could be served by hydro, nuclear, combined-cycle, con-
SYStEM EFFICIENCY AND TOTAL SYSTEM COS.T
ventional steam, diesel, or the most efficient combustion
turbine, all depending on individual unit fuel price and

r
After having developed several plans based on equal
operating conditions.
generation system reliab!Jity, with alternate kinds and
sizes of generating units having different reliability
The top of the load duration curve from 0 hours to
characteristics, the next step in the planning process is to
study these plans in the context of total system cost. Total about 1500 hours per year operation is classified as the
~I

I system cost includes the costs of fuel, operation, peakload area. This area is normally served by the highest
fuel cost generation as simple-cycle combustion turbines,

•
maintenance, and capital - including the capital cost of
reserve capacity. Total syste.m cost is the cost used to .but also by peaking hydro in systems where hydro is
calculate the price of electricity. economical.

The area between the peakload and the baseload

The system fuel cost is particularly difficult to areas is the midrange area, with load durations from about
estimate. It is quite important to be a.ble to estimate future

r system fuel cost as accurately as possibJ~, and this has

led to the development of sophisticated computer pro-
grams simulating system operation, on an hour-by-hour
1500 hours per year up to about 5000 hours per year. The
types of genemtion serving these loads could be
combined-cycle units, older, less efficient baseload units
and conventional steam units designed for cycling duty.

r basis, taking adequate account of unit maintenance

scheduling, unit commitment and economic dispatch.

Rather than discussing the system operation simula-

To illustrate the effect of efficiency and fuel cost,
Table 4 shows an example of different kinds ef generation.
The simple-cycle gas turbines burn distillate oil; the STAG

r
.. '
tion methods in detail, the following will discuss the
general nature of l.)tility load demands and the different
types of generation used for serving the load. The purpose
combined-cycle and the conventional oil steam units are
assumed to burn residual oil with the same cost of 4.50
$/MBtu.
is to contribute to the understanding of economic system
operation and how the combined-cycle plant would Table 4
operate on an electric utility system with oil and gas used
as a signifiGant fuel $Ource. DATA FOR LOAD DURATION CURVE EXAMPLE

Load-Duration Curve Fuel Heat

Taking one year of load data and plotting the hourly Cost Rate Fuel Cost
loads in descending order woulcl yieJd a load duration $/MBtu Btu/kWh Mills/kWh
curve. A typical curve is shown in Fig. 6.
Steam Residual Oil 4.50 9,320 41.9
There are three general areas fndicated on the graph. STAG Residual Oil 4.50 8,590 38.7
f, The baseload area covers loads with durations down to GT Distillate Oil 6.00 11,500 69.0
J.
.1
about 5000 hours per year. These loads are served by the
lowest production cost (fuel plus operating and main-
:enance costs) generation on the• systeon. The baseload
The result of applying the generation described to the
load duration curve is shown in ·Fig. 7. In this case, the
•
 reliability evaluation to the savings from the load-duration
curve example. The results are shown in Table 5.
LOAD DURATION CURVE
EXAMPLE; Table 5
100
GAS TOTAL SYSTEM COST EVALUATION
TURBINE

Reserve Capacity 2.0 M$

Replacement Energy 4.5 M$
Energy Evaluation 74.0 M$
20
Total Value 80.5 M$
1 2 3 • 5 6 7 81000
Annual Savings at 16% FCR
HRS/YR GTOS182
80.5 x 0.16 = 13 M$/year

Figure 7
MIXED PATTERN GENERATION

lower mills/kWh cost of the combined-cycle causes the
system to run the STAG power plants the same or more
hours than the conventional oil steam units. As indicated
in Fig. 7, the STAG plant and a new conventional steam
plant burning the same fuel would likely operate around
7000 hours per year.
Unit Energy Evaluation
A simple way to compare the production cost of an ad~
ditional combined-cycle unit with an additional conven-
tional steam unit would be to estimate yearly operating
hours from a load-duration curve and then calculate the
energy cost difference between the alternatives.
Assuming a 300 MW addition and 7000 hours per year
operation, the energy cost using a conventional steam
plant would be
300,000 X 7000 _X 41.9 X 1fY9 = 88.0 M$/year
For the combined-cycle plant
300,000 X 7000 X ~.7 X 10·9 = 81.3 M$/year
i Energy savings in favor of the combined-cycle alter-
nate are 6.7 M$/year expressed in 1983 dollars.
The levelized energy savings in favor of the combined
cycle, using a levelizing factor based on 12 percent cost of
money, 8 percent Inflation and 20 years, will then be
6.7 X 1Q6. >< 1.537 = $11.9 M/yr
Capitalized at 16 pQrcent fixed charge rate, the energy sav-
ings are $74 million or abot.:t 248 $/kW equivalent plant
I
••I
cost.
The final resylts in terms Qf total cost of generation
may be obtained from adding the savings from the
We will now consider the advantage of expanding a
utility power system with a mixed pattern of generation
options instead of only using one kind of generation. As
was indicated with the screening curves shown in Fig. 2, it
is likely that distillate oil-fired simple-cycle gas turbines
and residual oil-fired combined-cycle would be par-
ticipating in the optimum expansion using the cost and
performance data in the example.
The shape of the utility system power demand curves
is an important input to even simple economic analysis,
and the daily, seasonal and annual variation is normally
recorded by utilities on an hourly basis. ·
The curve in Fig. 8 is an example of a daily load curve
where the load in percent is plotted on the vertical scale
against the 24 hours of the day from midnight to midnight.
This curye happens to have a 50 percent load factor which
means that the kWh delivered is 50 percent of what would
be delivered if the kW demand were constant for 24 !"lours
at the ievel of the peak. We want to use this curve as the
base of a very simple economic analysis at the end of this
paper, for the purpose of illustrating some principles
which have been verified by many utilities In many parts of
the world using the most advanced methods of generation
planning. Cost of electricity, including capital costs, fuel,
operations and maintenance costs, all expressed In
mills/kWh will be the measure of merit.
Cost' of Single Type
The demand characteristic shown in Fig. 8 and the
generating characteristics shown in Table 1 will be useg to
illustrate the mixed generation concept. The O&M co;Sts
are combined with the fuel cost. Imagine that this load will
be served by just one type of generation and calculate the
cost of doing so. We shall ignore the existence of reserve
capacity and consider that the analysis of the eeonomics
of serving this one day's load is the same as analyzing a
total year's load or even many years' load into the future.

7
"
li
DAILY LOAD CURVE
L.F.: 50%
DAILY LOAD CURVE
L.F. =50% •
n %/KW ~/KW

BASE (70% C.F.)

r
12M 12M 12M 12M
MOUR HOUR
GT081U

Figure 8
J1
ll Table 6 gives total system generation cost in
mills/kWh on the assumption that any one of the four
types of generation could alone serve the load operating
at an average capacity factor of 50 percent which is the
load factor of the load. Capacity factor is the ratio of the
Figure 9
energy across the 24-hour band. The amount of capacity in
the peak band is about 20 percent {>f the total, and the in-
termediate is also about 20 percent, and the base
represents ti.,e remainder of 60 percent of the capacity.

,.t:''
.,.J
energy actually generated by a unit to the energy that
would be generated if it operated at its rating for the full
period of time. Since we have ignored reserve capacity and
Baseload Component

If we take the base portion of capacity, 60 percent

maintenance outages in this simple analysis, the capacity operating at 70 percent capacity factor on its own capac-
factor of each of the units can be equal to the load factor.

11• The capital and fuel cost compof1ents are shown
separately from the totals to show how they var1 from the
low capital cost gas turbines to the highest capital cost of
•
ity, that will give the energy in the base portion. If to this is
added the 20 percent intermediate capacity running at 30
percent capacity factor and similarly the peaking portion,
the total weighted average load factor of 50 percent is the

r coal plants. The fuel costs, of course, go in reverse order.

For this 50 percent capacity factor, the STAG plant gives
the lowest cost, but this is not the best that can be done in
result which, of course, matches the original load. Now let
us consider the costs of generating each of these blocks
of energy separately, beginning with the base portion.

r the cost of serving load.

·Table 6
In Table 7 the capital cost of each of the generation
types has been calculated at 70 percent capacity factor.
which makes it lower than on the previous 50 percent
capacity factor chart.
[ 1983 SYSTEM LEVELIZED GENERATION COST
(Mills/kWh)
Table 7
50% C.F.
[ 1983 UNIT GENERATION COST
(Mills/kWh)
Capital Fuel Total
Base - 70% C.F.
[
! I
Gas Turbine
STAG Combined Cycle 19
7 114
66
121
85 Capital Fuel Total •
Steam 31 69 98
Gas Turbine 5 114 119
STAG Combined Cycle 13 66 79
In Fig. 9 we have divided the load by horizontal bands Steam 22 69 91
into a lower portion which has a 70 percent capacity factor
relative to its own total capacity and called the base por-
tion of the load. Above thl$ is the intermediate band where The fuel costs are the same as bet or~. so the totals are
the energy generated within that band is about 30 percent reduced by the change in the capital costs. Looking at the
of the tota.llf the load were constant for the whole time. At
the top we have sliced off the peaking portion of the load
where the energy is only about 10 percent of the total
STAG combined-cycle unit, the capital cost has gone
down from 19 mills to 13 mills, inversely proportional to
the capacity factor. The fuel cost is still 66 and the total Is
•
 ' ~' '

:-;. . \ .
, ... ~wo"··.-~~~-*.,.·~-4.,:...,.~"1! ·.....,.,~~~.~·..-..,,

79; so we have reduced the generating cost from 85 ml!ls Table 10 shows the total system cost results
to 79 mills. But the only way this could have been done developed from the values in Tables 7 through 9. The peak-

ib was by restricting the STAG capacity to 60 percent of the

total, and we must therefore consider generation for the
rest of the capacity in the intermediate and peaking
ing portion of the load represents 20 percent of the total
kW, but because of the low capacity factor, only 4.0 per-
cent.of the kWh. Even with the very. high mills/kWh cost of
ranges. 198, the weighted value is only 6.0. The intermediate band
11
Midrange Component
1"able 10
Table 8 shows unit generation cost calculated at the
MIXED PATTERN COST
intermediate 30 percent capacity factor. The capital costs
in mills/kWh have gone up slightly more than twice
Capacity Energy Weighted
because the capacity factor here is a little less than half
% % Mills/kWh
11 the 70 percent on the previous chart. Again, the fuel costs
are the same, the relationships have changed but the
Peaking 20 4.0 6.0
STAG combined cycle still gives the lowest cost. The STAG
Intermediate 20 12.0 11.6
combined cycle at 97 mills is the obvious choice for this
Base 60 84.0 66.4
intermediate range of the load curve.
Totals 100 100.0 84.0

[ Table 8
also represents 20 percent of the kW, but with its 30 per·
cent capacity factor it includes 12 percent of the kWh. The
1983 UNIT GENERATION COST
STAG combined-cycle at 97 mills gives a weighted total
(Mills/kWh)
system cost of 11.6 mills/kWh. Finally, the base portion
has 60 percent of the kW and 84 percent of tile kWh which
Intermediate - 3'0% C.F.
at 79 mills/kWh gives the total of 84 mills/kWh for the
Capital Fuel Total mixed pattern generation.
[
,_;
Gas Turbine 12 114 126 The first three lines on Table 11 are a repeat of Table 6
STAG Combined Cyde 31 66 97 showing the cost of generating the 50 percent load factor
load with just one type of generation. The last line shows
~- Steam 51 69 120
the mixed pattern components which give the lowest total
system cost. When operating alon'e, the STAG combined-
Peaking Components
cycle plant gave the lowest total cost, but the mixed pat-

r Then finally in Table 9·we show the 10 percent capacity

factor results and the total mills/kWh cost has gone up
drastically for all of the generation types. But now the low
tern beats this by sacrificing 1.9 mills/kWh in fuel cost to
gain 2.9 mills/kWh in capital cost, resulting in a savings of
1.0 mills/kWh.
$/kW of the simple-cycle gas turbine comes into play, and Tab'le 11
it gives the lowest total mills/kWh for this portion of the
load curve. 1983 SYSTEM LEVELIZED GENERATION COST
Table 9 (Mills/kWh)

1983 UNiT GENERATION COST 50% C.F.

(Mills/kWh)
Capital Fuel Total
Peaking - 10% C.F.
Gas Turbine 7 114 121
Capital Fuel Total STAG Combined Cycle 19 66 ES
Steam 31 69 98
Gas Turbine 37 114 151 Mixed Pattern 16.1 67.9 84
STAG Combined Cycle 94 66 160
Steam 153 69 222 The mixed pattern of STAG combined-cycle and gas
turbines also saves money over the all-steam turbine pat-
J~ J
MJxed Pattern Total Cost tern by gaining 1.1 mills/kWh In fuel cost plus a 14.9
mills/kWh saving in capital cost.
VVe can now generate what Is called a mixed pattern of

~
generation - a combination of unit types to serve a single Although most utility systems today are planned and
load - and this will produce lower total cost than any one expanded using sophisticated computer production and
kind of generation operating alone. system reliability simulation tools, this simple but prac-

? 9

.I
~
...,..._..
•. ~!Qt._?io,W4f..~;<j·.;· .. "!'!'·:i:'l:-:_~~~~.-· .....~~~-~4-Jj()j
;·. :• ;_~

'
.
 tical example shows the true reason why a mixed pattern
of generation can produce lower total costs than a single
pattern, and how generating units such as combined-cycle
units· can effectively participate in an economic gener-
ating system because of tt1eir low capital cost and high ef-
ficiency.
It will be noted that in none of the calculations of
generating costs have the steam units given lowest cost.
That is because the residual oil-fired STAG plant has
lower energy cost than the residual oil-fired steam plants.
If 1.0 mills/kWh seems like a small nucnber, it may be
useful to take a look at the yearly impact of this difference
in two different size utility systems. For a medium size
system with 3200 MW annual peak and 50 percent load
I factor generating 14016 GWh per year, the annual savings
would be 14 million dollars. In a 15,000 MW system with
similar characteristics the savings would be 66 million
I dollars per year.
SUMMARY
I unit additions. In systems burning predominantly oil and
Screening curves aro quite useful for illustrating the ef-
fects of several generation economic parameters. Screen-
I
i
I
I
i
10
ing curves can show conclusively if one type of generation
is not competitive. Screening curves can indicate the po-
tential of a mixed pattern of generating types to reduce the
cost of electricity.
Reliability of electric supply should be of utmost im-
portance in planning future generation systems. STAG
combined-cycle plants offer improvements in generation
•
system reliability compared to similar conventional steam
plants because of modular arrangement. System loss-of-
load probability studies can quantify the advantage of the
STAG plant design.
STAG combined-cycle efficiency offers the potential
for reduction of both fuel costs and fuel consumption.
Detailed electric system reliability and economic oper-
ation simulation studies can determine the mixture of gen-
erating types which will result in the lowest total genera-
tion system cost.
STAG combined-cycle power plants could be a signifi-
cant percentage of the optimum mix of future generating
gas, the STAG plant should be expected to be the most
economical choice for baseload duty.
•
•
-
r
,, I

..

ffl tT
.. _, ~
CONVERSION FACTORS
n The following is a list of conversion factors most
commonly used for gas turbine performance.
fl
n To Convert To Multiply By To Convert Tc Multiply By

acres hectares 4.047 x 1o- 1 hp (U.S.) hp (metric) 1.014

~~ atm kg/cm 2 1.0333 in. em 2.540
atm lb/in. 2 1.47 X 101 in. mm 2.54 X 101
bars a.tm 9.869 X 10- 1 in. 2 mm 2 6.452 X 102
[! .

bars lb/in. 2 1.45 X 101 in. of mercury kg/cm 2 3.453 X 10-2

Btu J Qoules) 1.055 X 103
in. of water
2.52 X 10- 1
r. '·
Btu
Btu/h
Btu/h
kcal
kcal/h
kJ/h
2.520 X 10- 1
1.0548
(at 4 °C)
in. of water
(at 4 c:c)
kg/cm 2 2.54 X 10- 3

lblin. 2 3.613 X 10- 2

r ~
Btu/h
Btu/hp-h
Btu/hp-h
W {watts)
kcal/kWh
kJ/kWh
2.931 X 10- 1
3.379 x 1o- 1
1.4148
J
kg
Btu
lb
9.486 x 10- 4
2.2046
r

f~.. Btu/kWh kcal/kWh 2.5.198 X 10- 1 kg/cm 2 lb/in.2 1.422 X 101

Btu/kWh kJ/kWh 1.0548 kg-m ft-Jb 7.233
Btu/lb kcal/kg 5.555 x 1o- 1 kg/m 3 lb/ft 3 6.243 x 10- 2
Btu/lb kJ/kg 2.3256 km mil9s. (statute) 6.214 X 10-i
1: oc OF (°C X 9/5) + 32 kW hp 1.341
oc K oc + 273.18 I tt3 3.531 X 10 .... 2
I'
~-. ·,1
cm 3
cm 3
tt3
in. 3
3.531 X 10-S
6.102 X 10- 2
lb
lb/in.2
kg
kg/cm 2
4.536 x 10- 1
7. 03 X 10- 2
OF oc (°F- 32) X 5/9 lb/in. 2 Pa 6.8948 X 103
I ft m 3.048 x 10- 1 lb-ft 2 kg-m 2 4.214 X 10- 1 l
ft 2 m2 9.29 X 10- 2 1/min ft 3/s 5.886 X 1Q- 4
ft 3 I .(liters) 2.832 X 101 1/min galls 4.403 X 10- 3
I ft 3 m3 .2.832 X 10- 2
1.286 X 10- 3
m
m2
ft
ft 2
3.281
'1.076 X 101
ft .. Jb
ft·ib
Btu
kg-m 1.383 X 10- 1 m3 tt3 3.531 X 101 l '

I ft/min km/h 1.8288 X 10- 2 mile (statute) km 1.6093

ft 3/min 1/s 4.720 X 10- 1 tons (metric) kg 1.0 X 103
ft 3/min m3/mln 2.as2 x 10- 2 tons (metric) lb 2.205 X 103
I gal m3 3.785 X 10- 3 w Btu/h 3.4129
gal/min 1/s 6.308 x 10 ... 2 w Btu/min 5.688 X 10- 2

I hectares
hp (U.S.)
aores
kW
2.471
7.457 x 1o-1
w
w
ft·lb/S
hp
7.378 X 10- 1
1.341 x 10- 3
I.
lb ~ . .A
I
I
-·
""',__ _ _ ""''·~~-·~~~"'!.f,'"-""':t""'' ...._ .• '"....,,~ ~~--=-~j
.,. . , . If
·""'!"~"

~, ' ~. ~·~
 GER-3400
1983 GAS TURBINE REFERENCE LIBRARY

STAG Combin.ed-Cycie Operating Experience GER-3420 Replacement of Existing Gas Pipeline Compressor
Station Equipment
•
GER-34.01 STAG Combined-Cycle Product Line
GER-3421 Advanced Materials and Coatings
GER-3402 STAG Combined-Cycle Plant Engineering and
11 GER-3403
Construction Management
Steam Tur-bines for STAG Combined-Cycle Power
GER-3422
GER-3423
GE MS7001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine
Electric Utility Gas Turbine Applications
System:;
GER-3424 Aircraft- Derivative Maintenance Practices
GER-3404 Heat Recovery Steam Generators for STAG
GER-3425 GE LMSOOO Aircraft-Defivative Gas Turbine
Combined-Cycle Plants
System
GER-3405 Controls for STAG Combined-Cycle Plants
GER-3426 GE Mark IV SPEEDTRONIC Control System
GER-3406 STAG Combined-Cycle Power Systems Reliability
GER-3427 GE Data-Tronic Information and Control System
GER-3407 STAG Combined-Cycle Power Systems Operation
GER-3428 Fuels Flexibility in Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines
and Maintenafice
GER-3408 STAG Combin~d-Cycle Fuel Flexibinty and GER-3429 Meeting the Quality Commitment with Experience
and Technology
Economic Evaluation
STAG Combined-Cycle Plants in Pow€: Gefieration GER-3430 Industrial Gas Turbine Cogeneration Application
GER-3409
Planning Analysis Considerations
GER-3431 GE LM2500 Aircraft-Derivative Gas Turbine System
GER-3410 Combined-Cycle Repowering Mechanics and
Economics GER-3432 GE MS9000 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine
f
GER-3411 STAG Combined-Cycle System Economics GER-3433 Application of Gas Turbines in the Process Industry
GER-~412 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine Maintenance Pracdces
GER-3434 Recent Developments and Design Philosophy for
GER-3413 GE MS600l Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines

•
GER-3414 Gas Turbine Parts and Performance Update GER-3435 GE Gp.s Turbine Multiple-Combustion System
,.,. GER-3415 Compres;;or Selection to Match Gas Turbine Rated
Speed
Characteristics, Emission Control Techniques and
Hardware T~;:chnology

GER-3416 GE Comp• !Ssors for Pipeline and GER-3436 Project Mar~3.gement Concepts
Process Applications
GER-3437 Performance Characteristics
1: GER-3417 Gas Turbine and Compressor Testing for Mechani-=al
Drive Systems GER-3438 Liquid Fuel Treatment s: ~terns
GER-3418 Generator Selection Criteda for Gas Turbme Powt!r GER-3439 Coal-Fired STAG Combined-Cycle Applications
Plants
I. GER-3419 Gas Turbine Inlet Air Treatment
GER-3451 Le.~islation
and Regulations Affecting
Cogeneration

....~
I
·~
I
CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC COMP.A.NY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

I 1900 Eglinton Avenue, East

Scarborough, Ontario. Canada
International Trading Operations
570 Lexington Avenue
New York City, New York 10022 USA

I GAS TURBINE DIVISION

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
I
~
SCHENEGIADY. NE'IJ YORK 12345 USA

I 8/83 (3M)
GENERAL fj
U8A.
ELECTRIC ...-~··· • fj

I
:) ~·~· <:.: ·\\~.~~;:~:r~!·,~~-~-;-~J;~, """~~·~?~!'"'~ -----,·, ,,_JJ
·• ..,} \•
~. I
 -
H
I·

. !III . . .... , '··", . /L

..• t T"''
~ "-· ..~Tire~- ·J~~-~~f~~~-:-- .:::~2:-~:~;.:_::i{·f:
' J

·• t

GER-3400

GAl TURBINl REFERENCE: LIBHARY

Combined-Cyde
Power fyftemJ _,.......
CONTENTS
·. PAGE
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
STAG Combined-Cycle COMBINED-CYCLE CHARACTERISTICS ....
STAG COMPONENT EXPERIENCE ..............
2
2
Operating Experience FIRST-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS .......
SECOND-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS ..
3
::S
THIRD-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS ....... 5
STAG PLANT OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE COST ......................... 7
FUEL FLEXIBILITY .......................................... 8
SUMf'wiARY ........................................................ 10

I. Ronald W ;tepien A TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS IS

INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS PUBLICATION
'
Manager-STAG Ct:~mbined-Cycle I

~------------------------------------~
I

I. Market Development
Gas Turbine Division
Schenectady 1 New York

I David C. Timmerm&n
INTRODUCTION
I Manager-International
Market Development
Medium Steam Turbine Department
The steam and gas (STAG*) combined-cycle plant of
today has been evolving for over 34 years It has
Lynn, MassachuseHs evolved in plants where capital cost and efficiency were
I very important. Early combined-cycle applications were
made in a variety of situations, ranging from process
steam plant applications to electric utility repowenngs.

I The first new General Electric combined-cycle plants

used for power generation were crmmissioned m 1968
and were called STAG combined-cycle plants. The
decade of the 1970's was a decade of growth for the
GENERAL f} ELECTRIC STAG combined-cycle product: product maturity and
reliability increased extensively. Field expenence witl'i
these plants has led to optimrzed systems with excellent
efficiency and operatmg flexibility at lower overall cost
I Copyright© 1983 by General Electric Co. Printed m USA
than conventional generating plants.

• Trademark of General Electnc Co., USA

l
I
'I
•
'
..
'
f1l •• 'l
'
 r· GER-3400

GAl TUAI31NE REfEREr~CE LIBRARY

t[t
11
II r
t
t

Combined-Cycle
Power /yJtemf ~
.l' ..
CONTENTS
'
PAGE
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
•.. STAG Combined-Cycle
I
';
.. COMBINED-CYCLE CHARACTERISTICS .. .. 2
STAG COMPONENT EXPERIENCE ............ .. 2
Operating Experience FIRST-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS ...... . 3

l SECOND-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS .. 3

•I,
THIRD-<lENERATION STAG SYSTEMS ....... 5
STAG PLANT OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE COST ....................... .. 7
FUEL FLEXIBILITY ........................................ .. 8
SUMMARY ........................................................ 10 /

I. Ronald W. Stepien A TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS IS

INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS PUBLICA TICN
Manager--STAG Combined-Cycle
Market Development
Gas Turbine Division
Schenectady, New York

I pavld C. Timmerman
INTRODUCTION
I Manager-International
Market Development
Medium Steam Turbine Department
The steam and gas (STAG"') combined-cycle plant of
today has been evolving for over 34 years. It has
lynn, Massachusetts evolved ir. plants where capital cost and effiCiency were
I very important. Early combined-cyGie applications were
made in a variety of situations, rangmg from process
steam plant ·'applications to electric util1ty repowenngs.

I The fii'&t new General Electrtc combined-cycle plants

used for power generation were commiSsioned 1n 196f3
and were ealled STAG combined-cycle plants. The
decade of the 1970'& was a decade of growth for the
GENERAL fj ELEClRIC STAG combined-cycle product: product maturity and
reliability in·~reased e,-_!ensively. Field experience with
th-ese plants has led to optimized systems With excellent
efficiency and operating flexibility at lower overall cost
than conventional generating plarts. l
Copyright© 1983 by General Eie~:trlc Co, Printed rn USA I~
• Trademark of General Electnc Co., USA I
r
As of 1983 General Electric has 51 STAG combined- MS9000. General Electric designates its plants by the
cycle power generation systems in service or on order. letter and number sequence shown below:
Their high reliability and economic power generation

tr have led to the STAG system's acceptance as a primary

baseload. power-generation option. Worldwide order
trends show a significant increase in the rate of applica-
PLANT DESIGNATION

EXAMPLE: S209E
tion bi utilities and industries looking for the economic
s
tr bertems provided by combined-cycle systems.
T
STAG
2

I
NUMBER
0 9

I
MODEL
E

I
MODEL
OF GAS SERIES GAS

tr STAG COMBINED-CYCLE EXPERIENCE

TURBINES GAS
TURBINE
TURBINE

(As ot'111183)

tr 128 in Commercial Operation

23 in Engineering .t. InstallatiOn

5200 MW

Total
COMBINED-CYCLE CHARACTERISTICS
A gas-turbine combined-cycle system consists of a
gas-turbine cycle and a steam-turbine cycle. The com-
bination of the two results in a systE":m that is more effi-
cient than either cycle alone. Today's systems are quite
simple - the gas turbine exhaust heat is rE.lcovered in
unfired heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) which
produce steam at moderate steam conditions for non-
reheat stea.m turbines.
I There are three categories of combined-cycle sys-
tems. These systems are traditionally segregated by the
manner in which ~nergy is supplied to the steam system.
The three major categories are listed below:
3300 MW
The simplest STAG system is the single-shaft syste:m.
In this system the gas turbine. steam turbine. and gen-
8500 MW erator are all on one shaft {Fig. 1). STAG systems that
contain from two to six gas turbines are multishaft sys-
tems (Fig. 2). The multishaft system (or multiple single-
shaft systems installed in a single plant) provides a high
degree of operational flexibility. While part of the plant
is generating power, the remainder may be shut down
because of decreased !cad or for maintenance.
The STAG combined-cycle plant costs approximately
1/3 less than a steam plant and offers fuel savings of 10-
20 percent.. A system r.an become commercially opera-
tional in two years from date of order. The operational
flexibility and reliability de:monstrated over the past
15 years will be discussed in this paper.
STAG COMPONENT EXF1ERIENCE
The forerunner of STAG plants dates back to the late
1940's when combined cycles for i.ndustrial and utility

I e Thf~ unfired heat recovery cycle system

• Tha supplemental fired heat recovery cycle system
o The exhaust fired cycle system SINGLE-SHAFT STAG
COMBINED CYCLE

Economic analysis of today's power generation costs

gives preference to the unfired combined-cycle system.
The advantages of this plant. developed in the 1970's for
electric· power generation, are high efficiency, low invest-
ment cost. simplicity, and short delivery and start-up

I time. The STAG combined-cycle system is General

Electric's pre-engineei'ed design which utilizes the
.
unfired heat-recovery combined-cycle concept.
GEN ST
GT083U~

The STAG plant combines factory-packaged com-

I
ponents with an integrated control system. It may con-
tain from one to six gas, turbines of various sizes, includ~
ing the MS5000, the MSSOOO, the MS?OOO, and the

2
Figure 1 •
'.~·
l I
 generation, which General Electric called STAG olants.
The ratings of these first-generation systems ranged
from 14 to 35 MW. Their service performance has been
excellent, and all are still in operation. Through Janu-
ary 1, 1983, these plants have accumulated a total 0f
H MULTI SHAFT
339,000 hours of operation. Two of these plants, Ottawa
Water & Light and Wolverine Electric Co-op. have each
STAG exceeded 100.000 hours of operation. The early experi-
COMBINED CYCLE
ence and reliability of systems like these. coupled with
tr their efficiency benefits, led to the expansion of
combined-cycle applications, initially in the U.S. but now
worldwide.

GTD.e303A

Figure 2
application were first installed. At this time installations
were rnade in a variety of situations, ranging from
bas1~load process steam plants to utility repowering
applications. During the 1960's, General Electric equip-
ment was installed in over 100 such plants.
SECONO-GE'£NERATION STAG SYSTEMS
The second-generation STAG plants evolved with the
introduction of larger. more efficient gas turbines.
II
Because there was an immediate demand for large
amounts of power, several utilities decided to built largE!
l
STAG plants. The first large multi shaft STAG plant
(320 MW) was purchased by Jersey Central Power &
Light in 1971. Between then and the end of 1974.
15 more second generation STAG systems were order·ad
by eight utilities. The plants consistf:d of either single-
shaft or multishaft arrangements and were sized from

b
72 MW to 640 MW.
The ciJrrent STAG ~ystem uses maje>r components
tha.t have proven reliability in baseload and cyclic duty. Table 1 lists all the General Electric STAG plants cur-
Th,e heavy-duty gas turbines utilized in the STAG power
rr system are backed by over 100 million hours of commer-
cial operation, with more than 4 million hours accumu-
rently in operation or on order. The first- and ser;ond-
generation plant sites include 22 STAG sys.tems.
Approximately half of these installations were single-
lated on crude or residual fuel. Many of these GE- shaft systems and half multishaft syst€~ms.
designed units are baseloaded in critical applications.
I Over 800 have been used in pipeline applications and
have accumulated over 38 million hours. Another 380
Examples of second-gene·ration STAG system
arrangements are found in Houston Lighting & Power
are used in process industries, and over 2200 are used (Texas-USA, Fig. 3), Salt River Project (Arizona-USA

I for electric utility and industrial power generation appli-

cations. Over 300 of the total number of units (nearly
3500) are used in conjunction with heat recovery steam
Fig. 4), and Duquesne Light Compa,ny {Pennsylvania-
USA, Fig. 5). ·

generators. The rapid increase in utility derr.and for larger. more

I The first General Electric HRSG was placed in com-
mercial service in 1963 and, since then, more than 220
efficient gas turbines (experienced in the early 1970's)
required significant technolo~Jical developments. STAG
plant designs were establishf.!d to rnatch the greater air-
units have been sold domestically and internationally.
flow and higher firing temperatures of the MS7000 gas
The vast majority of these units are use.d in combined-
turbine. The resulting output ancj efficiency of these
cycle plants for industrial and utility applications, accu-
plants exceeded the guarantee lew~ls.
mulating over 9 million hours of operation.

I The General Electric steam turbines in STAG plants

are simple, nonreheat condensing units used without ex-
traction feedwater heaters. General Electric units of this
type have established a worldwide record for high avail-
Initial operating avalfabilitiets were 70 percent.
Although the 70 percent availabiHty was similar to large
steam plants. it did not meet utility expectations and was
below the experience t::>f the first-generatirJn designs. A

I ability with hundreds of millions of operating hours. specific set of field improvements were applied to
correct deficiencies. For the past five years these
second-generation plants have operated with availabili-
ties (80 percent) excel3ding the average of USA oil- and
FIRST-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS
gas-fired steam plants. With 290,000 hours of second-
In the late 1960's, four U.S. utilities purchased new generation operations. the ST1~G system has demon,.
heat-recovery combined-cycle plants for electric power str.ated product maturity. !
l(_
3
t
. :}.,.....:
,.. •;."h
40\1'
.. l
•i/'JI:.'j...A.
.,;;:x)~., ~, . .•
"1 \!':'

o •
'
• ••
•~
-
.
..
'
•
.
'
I .
I
\• O
(
•.
.. '
'
•
r
I
'

.
•
'
'!..' " •
.. ..
.. , 1

- ...... .!.I
. ~·~ ,.
, ... :...~os

1:\··{.:.',: I
I
1 11 I 0

--
~~~r:x~~:..··+~.~~~~=:::~l -
I n
I

Table 1
GENERAL ELECTRIC STAG OPERATING EXPERIENCE
(As of 1/1/83)
.
. Gas Turbine STAG System
F
I Plant Rating No. of Commission Commission Operatrng
Plant Country Type (MW) Gas Turbines Date Fuel Date Hours

First Generation
Ottawa L&P USA STAG 103 14 1 06/68 G/D 06/68 98,980
r City of Hutchinson USA STAG 103 14 1 07/72 G/D 07/72 64,435
Wolverine Electric USA STAG 105 35 1 06/68 G/D 06/68 102,735
City of Clarksdale USA STAG 105 35 1 06/72 G/D 06/72 73,022

Second Generation
USA (3)STAG 107 220 3 10/74 G/D 10/74 53.700
[ Salt River Nos. 1-3
Salt River No. 4 USA STAG 107 72 1 05/75 G/D 05/75 16,600
Arizona Public Ser USA (3)STAG 107 230 3 06/76 D/R 06/76 20,800
USA STAG 207 225 2 06/73 D 12/74 16,800

I
Ohio Edison
Duquesne Light USA STAG 307 330 3 06/73 D 06/74 16,123
f Iowa-Illinois Plant
JerseyCentral
USA
USA
STAG 405
STAG 407
95
320
4
4
08-10/69
01-05/74
G/D
G/D
04/77
05/77
8,832
8,500
Houston L&P USA (2)STAG 407 600 8 06/72-1174 G/D 07/74 109,100 J
Pumto Rico
Korea Electric
Portland GE
Puerto Rico
Korea
USA
(2)STAG 407
(2)STAG 407
STAG 607
640
640
550
8
8
6
10/75-7/76
07-12/77
09/74
D
D
D
5-6177
3-6/79
10/77
32,400
5.400
2.400
Ii
Third Generation
Western Farmers
Coolwater
Chubu
USA
USA
Japan
(3)STAG 107
STAG 107
(5)STAG 107
300
100
560
3
1
5
09-11/77
84
G/D
Coal Gas
LNG/LPG
09/77
84
96,000
-
-
I l
TEPCO Japan (14)STAG 109 2000 14 85 LNG 85 -
Electr!cidad
de Misiones Argentina STAG 205 6Q 2 82 R/D 83 - I
T&TEC
MMWEC
Trinidad-Tobago
USA
STAG 207
STAG 307
198
341
2
3
83
12/81
G/D
G/D
84
12/81
-
3,600
-
II
fi
Tatwan Power
CFE
Tarwan
Mexico
(2)STAG 307
STAG 407
574
371
6
4
I 80
91
D/R
D
83
83 - t

I
j

,,"
I
r,

I
I
'

I
t j

t I
~ .. \ .'
... I j
!

t \
.-.r~·
.........
,!,Zit. ......
.
i

I Figure 3
GT06412

Figure 4
GT01475
II
I
4 j

I I

1
l

I
 l
I

'
l

I,
'
I.

[J

II
II GT08985 GT06B01
' . Figure 5 Figure 7
[
THIRD-GENERATION STAG SYSTEMS

I The third-generation STAG system is designed to

operate even more reliably at midrange or baseload
(continuous duty) than the previous systems. Table 1
includes the nine third-generation STAG plants. These
I .
plants incorporate 27 STAG combined-cycle systems in
operation or on order. Examples of third-generation
{) -
. arrangements are found at Western Farmers

lr (Oklahoma-USA, Fig. 6), MMWEC (Massachusetts-

USA. Fig. 7), and Taiwan Power (Fig. 8). The operating
availability f0r the third-generation STAG plants has been
over 90 percent. Figure 9 summarizes all the STAG

I plant operating availabilities. The total operating hours

for all STAG systems are summarized in Fig, 10.
The availabilities reported by the participating utilities

I .
were obtained by using an elaborate data-gathering sys-
Figure 8
GT08010

l
I
I L
r

I
I STAG PLANT OPERATING AVAJLABILfTIES

1ST GENERATION 88 PERCENT-AVERAGE

95 PERCENT -BEST UNIT
2ND GENERATION 80 PERCENT-AVERAGE
89 PERCENT -BEST UNIT
3RD GENERATION 91 PERCENT-AVERAGE
Ji 94 PERCENT -BEST UNIT

,. GT01487
Gl08867
t
I
t
f

I Figure 6 Figure 9 I
L
5 [
!.

•:
. .
.
'
. .
""' .
.
"
-
" -
I
• •-
•• ,
/ . ~
,
.
- ,,
-
_v
-·
~
'
.
.
't.:
,
I
. l.
' (

I I
'
l
SINGLE PRESSURE HEAT RECOVERY
FEED WATER HEATING !HRFH-1) STEAM CYCLE
STAG PLANT OPERATING EXPERIENCE

tr 1ST G!;!HERATION
AS OF JANUARY 1, 1983

4 STAG SYSTEMS 339,172 HOURS TOTAL

- -
lEGEND
- - - - STEAM
WATER
- - ... ~.GAS
lV!!, r-
I r-
::.
-
....
~-.:;- - - --,1
~
~
:
: I
102,735 HOURS MAX.
290,655 HOURS TOTAL
- - f'UEL • .;;;.r_
HMG ~h·--
--•---1-\.,?__ J
-----+--------~
I
2ND GENERATION 16 STAG SYSTEMS

1r 3RO GENERATION 6 STAG S.YSTEMS

85,000 HOURS MAX.
9S,600 HOURS TOT AI..
EXHAUST
GAS .
1
•, I
34,600 HOURS MAX.
+ t
11
TOTAL HOURS-ALL OPERATING SYSTEMS 729,427
D---:
GENEIIATDRs 6 ~TEAM I
TURaiNE I
D.A
CONDENSER d
o--
COND.
F••
I'UMP

II I'UMP GTO&liOIIA

Figure 10 Ffgure 12

'tr }
i

tern developed by General Electric, the Operational Reli-
ability Analysis Program {ORAP). Over 500 types of
potential outages are classified. The cause of any
outage is assigned to the appropriate component such
as the gas turbine. the HRSG, the steam WrDine, or the
balance of plant. These data are analyzed together with
other field data. General Electric and the users can
identify trends and establish either corrective action Qr
maintenance programs. This system of reporting field
experience has been instrumental in improving the
design, availability, and reliability of General Electric
STAG systems.
summarizes the 5-year performance record of the
Western Farmers pl~_nt. The consistent, low heat rate
and operating and maintenance costs with the high
availability of this baseload plant are a Gredit to the plant
operating personnel, as well as to the equipment's excel-
lent performance. The advantage of future STAG sys-
tems lies in General Electric's responsibility for maintain-
ing excellence throughout the design and manufacture of
all major components and controls - an advantage pro-
ven by exceptional performance records.
This equipment experience, along with improveme:rts

I Matching cycle requirements with product improve-

ments has advc:mc~d ~·,.~tticfently to allow concentration
on design refinements and manufacturing practices.
General Electric STAG systems have G demonstrated
record of component experience. Every STAG plant has
met or exceeded performa-nce requirements. Figure 11
in mechanical design and materials selection, has led to
incr~ased STAG system performance and ~eliability. The
various cycles currently used are illustrateo m Figs 12-
14. Table 2 shows the STAG system steam cond1t1ons
and cycle anangements that have been used over the
past 15 years.

I
I.
WESTERN FARMERS
COMBINED-CYCLE PERFORMANCE

KW~ :>lET
NET HEAT RATE M~INT COST PLANT LOAO
KJI!!.Wfi MILLS/KWH FACTOR l!.VAILABILITY
l TYPICAL CYCLE D~AGRAM
TWO PRESSURE HEAT RECOVERY FEEDWATER
HEATING (HRFH-2) STEAM CYCLE
1S1AC~

1978 1,366 161.000 9.600 0 3!>4 57'. 72\

1979 1,547 4:l3 000 8,258 0 443 65'. $.4\

1980 1.884.891.000 9,07:1 0 31 79'. !15\
1981 1,942.226 000 e.9:is 0 53 .ai\ 91\
1.108.000 000 9,307 0 86 47\
1982 l7\

I TOTAL UNIT HOURS AND STARTS II>ECEMBER 31, 19821

No 4 34.779 HOURS. 3E 1 STARTS
No 5 30.398 HOURS 4~2 STARlS
No 6 31.170 tiOURS. 30"1 STARTS

I. L-----~---------------------·---------------'""'M I
•
<
.

Figure 11 Ffgure 13

J:
 ,.~-. :.';'· . . . .•. 0 •'
-~~ ·'' '· '.__ ..;..,:_;:~. ~~

EXTRACTION FEED WATER HEATfNG (EFH-1) GENERAL ELECTRIC STAG

STEAM CYCLE INSTALLATiON EXPERIENCE
AIR COOLED CONDENSER GAS TUli81N£

If $TACK J
I&LT IIIVEA 1·3
SALT,.IYE,. 4
UTILITY
A,.CHETECT/
f:NGINEE~

GENEAAL ELECTAIC
GE~ER&L ELECTRIC
EOUIPIIIEIIT SHIP
CYCLE
IIIlO I

1!
---
O .. OER TO
COMPLE"iE
IIIlO)

26/211
16 2~
A .. IZOIIIA PUBLIC ':E .. VICE COIIIIIONWEALTH ASSOC 1!1117 311

II·
OHIO £015011 COIIIIIOIIW£AL TH A~SOC 16 211
DUOUUNf: UGHT GilliS I HILL 16 25
~WA•ILLIIIOIS PLT STAHLEY C\JiioULTANTS 22 3i
JERSEY CENT,.AL 8UANS I IIOE ~l- 611
HOUSTOII LIP EIIAS(:O SERVICES 15117 27
,.UERTO "ICO GEIIIERJOl ELECTRIC 2012• 42
1'01\TI.A~i) GE fiASCO SERVICES 211 40
WESTERN r A.. IIIERS SANDERSON I PORTER 111/21 33/35

11 EUCTIIICIO£L OE
UISS!OIIES
MMWlO
KOREA ELECTRIC
GENERAL ELECTRIC

IIECHTEL
GEHEIIAL ELECTRIC
6

1!1
1:!116
38

G'1'0113111 .J
Figure 14 Figur~ 15

lable 2 STAG PlANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

COST
GENERAL ELECTRIC
STA9 STEAM CYCLE EXPERIENCE Operation & Maint~nance (O&M) cost data vary
widely in the l).S. utility industry. lndividuai utilities
(As of 1/1/83)
report their O&M costs differently: however, typically, rhe

.-It.,
I
Plant
'
I
J Plant Type
!
r
I
Steam Condrtrons
Press
Atm
J
; •c
Steam
C':;cle
Steam
Turbme
two major components are (1) the labor and supervision
required t'o operate the plant and (2) the labor and
equipment required to maintain the plant. including
spare and renewable parts plus consumables (i.e., fiiters,
(4) SF-17
lubricants, etc.).
(3) SF-11
W BF·20 Becaus~ Of the high cost of distillate fuel and the
(1) DF·23

I Cll SF·20
111 OF·23
(2) 0::·23
restric*.ions which limit the use of natural gas in power
plants during the past decade, many comblr.~d-cyGie
plants hao low use factors. Since maintFJnance's fixed
(2) Dfl:]O
{2) DF·2~ .r: ~~t component is spref:ld over fewer gPrieration hours
I <tl4r·tss

1:;1 SF·17
':U IC.wJ~use-tactor plants, the q,pparent i7laintenance cost
m mills/kWh increases. Figure 16 snows the mainte-
C3J SF·23

I 13) SF·23
(3) SF·26
{3) SF-~4 3
(3) SF·23

Ir - - ASTAND MAi~TENANCE EXPERIENCE

(31 SF·23 G -COMBINED-CYCLE OPERATION

I (I)
DF·23
DF·2J

15

I .General Electric's experience In the installation of

STAG systems is shown in Fig. 15. The tlexibllity in
MAINTENANCE
COST
10

MILLS/KWH STAG CC PLANTS

STAG installation cycle times has been utilized m most ,!

I cases. Of those second· and third-generation plants in·

stalled (23 separate systems), approximately 2/3 were
5

commercial in three years or less from date of order. 1. f 1---l-

012345678 9
Those that required more Uian three years were either a OPERATING HOURS
phased installation (at the customer's request) or subject GT08l19

to regulatory delay. Some STAG plants have become

commercially operatronal in as· little as two years from
date of order. Figure 16

I
 l
nance cost of STAG plants as a fl!nction of operating value gast:s through natural gases, to distillates and
hours for tn~ y~fHS 1977-1981. Utilities in the U.S. are heavy (ash-forming) fuels. Many machines have dual
requ,red to furnish the Federal Power Commission with fuel capability. Recently, several U.S. utilities which have
1r dat-9. on the cost of operating each power plant site.
Plant sites with only STAG gel'lsration equipment can f)e
STAG plants have added the capabiltty to burn gas as
well as liquid fuels.
tragkea for maintenance costs by subtract!rt~ the fuel
Some of the most challenging fuels are the heavy
cost .Data on seven STAG plants (i5 STAG systems),
rr representing 83,000 total hours of eperation, are
(ash-forming) ones. Approximately three million hours of
service have been accumulated with these fuels for
reported. Yearly plant operating hours range from a
machines built prior to 1960. These units were installed
minimum of 10 to a maximum of 8563 hours. The line is
in various industries including 11 in electric utilities, 9 oil
a best fit ot 3Q data polnts developed predominantly on
pipeiine services, 1 ship propulsion operation, and
second-generaikm STl·M3 plants. These data show that
57 railroad locomotives. After 1960 the units increased
high use factor5 result(~ very low O&M cost.
I I in size to 15-100 MW and used higher firing tempertures.

lr. FUEL FLf!iXJBILITY

To date, more than 300 units have been shipped or are
on order. These units are capable of burning ash-
General Electric gas turbines have a history of suc- forming fuels. Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the 88 units
cesstuhy burning a wide range of fuels, from low heating installed since 1961. These units have significant oper-

Table 3

GENEF?AL ELECTRIC DESIGN HEAVY-DUTY GAS TURBINES

BURNING ffiUDE OLS - CPERATING EXPERIENCE

I INSTALLATION PERIOD 1951-PRESENT

' ' Metal Contamination A

"
Total Fired Hours Firing Temp. Raw Fuels Fuel
Turbine Appl. No. of Date In· Fired on Ash Bear· For Heavy Sod1um Vanadium Treatment
Customer Model Code Units stalled Hours ing Fuels Fuels (PPM) (PPM) Used

CRUDE OIL

I ~
111
SO PEG 3002(B) M 2 1961 220,000 120,ooo 1500
(1)

I PhilliPS 3002(J) M 6 1976 45,000 1730 5.8 0.6 1·Stg Centrifuge

MSSOOO

1 oool 1l
I Abu Oahbt 5001 EU 7 1969·75 288,000
'
11
2·1650
5·1550
25 0.15 1·Stg Centnluge

Call ex 5001 El 9 1970·78 580,000 260,ooo ' 1650 10 0.6 1·Stg Centnfuge

I EEG·Guatemala 5001(Pl EU 2 1977-78 50,000 22,000 165011730 max. 50 max. 8 2·Stg ESD·Storage·
Centrttuge V lnh1b1tor

SCECO·Oarsumah 5001(Pl EU 4 f977-83 42,000 18,000 1650/1750 max 20 max 15 Centnfuge V Inhibitor

I ~
Flonda Power
Corp. (Bartow) 7001i8) EU 4 1972 121
37,400 12.ooo 1840 10 3 ?·!?.tg ESD

I Anzona Public Servtce

Arrzona Public Servrce

7001(8)

7001(Cl
EU

EU
1 1975 2,700 200( 3)

3,340
1800 14

14
0.1 2·Sig ESD

3 1976 20,700 1840 01 2·Stg ESD

I SCECO·Rryadh

APPLICATION CODE
7001(El EU 16 1980-81 158,000 150,000 1930 1.0 7·9 ESD

El - Industrial Power Generation (1) 1979 Data (total fired hours eire current data)
EIJ - Ullltly Power Generatron (2) No Longe! Burns Crude
M - lndustnal Mechanrcal Drtve (3} Crude System Tested Only

' •. • ~ .• '. ...

. '
'5

. ."
 [

.~~ ating experience on ash-forming fuels (crude oil, residual

oil, blends, or heavy distillate).
Another General Electric unit recently achieved
30,000 hours of service. This unit burned No. 6 residual
fuel oi! on an MS5001 gas turbine cogeneration system.

H Several recent examples of this experience are

demonstrated by the 14 MS7001E turbines at the
Riyadh 7 power plant in Saudi Arabia. These machines
were commissioned in 1981 and have accumulated
15G,OOO hours of service.
-One MS7001 gas turbine has been operating at
Paramaribo, Surinam, since 1976. This turbine has
The system (located at the General Electric Lynn River
Works. Boston, Massachusetts, Fig. 17) consists of a gas
turbine-generator with supplementary-fired HRSG and
has been in operation for 10 years.
Economic power generation by a third-generation
STAG combined-cycle system is being demonstrated by

II operated for 26.000 hours. with over 24,000 hours on a

poor-grade residual oil. Baroscope and visual Inspection
show no signs of hot-gas-path corrosion.
the Taipower STAG 307E system at the Taipower Tung
Haiso Station. One gas turbine is now operating on
residual oil with 40-50 ppm vanadium. Equipment will

1/
Table 4

GENERAL ELECTRIC DESIGN HEAVY-DUTY GAS TURBINES

BURNING RESIDUAL OIL - cYERATING EXPERIENCE

I INSTALLATION PERIOD 1961-PRESENT

Metal Contamination
Total Fired Hours Fir!ng Temp. Raw Fuels Fuel
Turbine Appt, No. of Date In· Fired on Ash Bear· For Heavy Sodium Vanadium Treatment

I Customer

RESIDUAL OIL
Model Code Unns stalled Hours lng Fuels Fuels •f (PPM) (PPM) Used

~
Central Vermont 5001 EU 1 1961 10,550 700 1450

Ferrara . 5001 El 2 1963 170,000 54,000 1400 9-90 20·118 2·Stg Centrifuge
V Inhibitor

I GE Lynn 5001 El 1 1970 32,000 31,000 1650 100 male. 100 max. 2·Sig Centnfuge
or 2-Stg ESD
V Inhibitor

I Green Mtn. Power

O.N.E. Morocco
5001

5001
El

EU
1

6
1965

1974·78
8,500

75,000
600

63,000
1500

1650 100 max. 70 max,

V tnhobltor

2·Stg ESD
V Inhibitor..

I Broken Hills Prop.

Reksten
5002

5002
SP

SP
2

1
1973-7-4

1974
32,000

10,000
30,600

9,100
1650 40

100 max.
2

50·280
1·Stg Centrifuge

2·Stg Centrifuge
V Inhibitor

I, ,
Empressa 5001 EU , 1977-78 18,000 16,000 1650

MS7000

I Alcoa surinam 7001(8) EU 1 1976 ~.000 24,000 1750 60-150 80 2·Stg Centrifuge
V Inhibitor

Florida Power
Corp. (DeBarry) 7001R(B) EU 6 1976 -42,500 33,500 18o40 22·33 28-45 2·Stg ESD

I Tlawan Power Co, 7001(E) i:U 1 1980. 1,500 800 1955 1.2 24
V Inhibitor

3-Stg Electrostatic
1·Stg Cenlrlfuge
V lnhlbitor

APPLICATION CODE

El - Industrial Power Generation

EU - Utility Power Generation
SP - Ship Propulsion

I
l
Table 5

GtNERAL ELECTRIC DESIGN HEAVY-DUTY GAS TURBINES

BURNING BLENDS - OPERATING EXPERIENO::
ll
INSTAtLATION PERIOD 1961-PRESENT
. Metal Contamination

Customer
Turbine
Model
Appl.
Code
No. of
Units
Date In·
stalled
Total
Fired
Hours l
Fired Hours
on Ash Bear·
lng Fuels
Firing Temp.
For Heavy
Fuels
Sodium
(PPM) .
f
Raw Fuels
Vanad•um
(PPM)
Fuel
Treatment
Used

ll ~
Shell Curacao 5001 El 1 1971 53,000 17,000 1700 6.0 o. i
..

1·Stg Centrifuge

lndonesla·PLN 5001 EU 2 1974 <t2,000 <tO,OOO 1730 2.0 1.0 None Installed

~
Golt!an Valley 7001R El) 2 1976 47,500 47,500 1860 - - None Jnstaflgd

Riyadh Elec. Co. 70018 EU 5 19n 173,000 168,000 1840 2·3 7 V Inhibitor
Dlst. Bland

I ~
EDF 9001 EU 1 1975 7,200 100 1840 1.0 0.5 Nona Installed

-
I APPLICATION CODE

•
El - Industrial Power Generation
EU - Utility Power Generation

I
I be installed on the remaining five gas turbines to burn and with 3/4 of a million operating hours on combined-
residual oil. cycle plants, General Electric has the expenence
leadership in power plant combined cycles.
I SUMMARY
1 Gas-turbine combined cycles are operating as pri-
mary power generation plants in a variety of locations
and applications. STAG plants have 15 years and 3/4 of
a million operating experience hours, with performance
and reliability exceeding conventional fossil-fired plants.
I ; Third-generation systems, now in operation, show the
results oHhis experience; they are exceeding 90 percent
availability.
I There has been a steady increase in the application
of combined cycles. The General Electric STAG system
has played the predominant role in the packaged
integrated exhaust heat recovery... cycles that are des-
I tined to be the significant power generation option of the
future. Worldwide, approximately 17,000 MW of unfired
exhaust heat recovery combined cycles are in operation GTOB952
or on order. With approximately 8500 MW of this total Figure 17

10

I
 '• ..
I'

., ~
CONVERSION FACTORS
..
~~

. The following is a list of conversion factors most -

II -
commonly used for gas turbine performance .

.
If To Convert To Multiply By To Convert To Multiply By

II acres
atm
hectares
kg/cm 2
4.047 X 10- 1
1.0333
hp (U.S.)
in.
hp (metric)
em
1.014
2.540
atm lb/in. 2 1.47 X 101 in. mm 2.54 X 10 1
II bars
bars
atm
lb/in. 2
9.869 X 10- 1
1.45 X 101
in. 2
in. of mercury
mm 2
kg/cm 2
6.452 X 102
3.453 X 10- 2
Btu J Ooules) 1.055 X 103
in. of water
I Btu
Btu/h
kcal
kcal/h
2.52 X 10- 1
2.520 X 10- 1
(at 4 °C) kg/cm 2 2.54 X 10- 3
in. of water
Btu/h kJ/h 1.5548 (at 4 °C) lb/in. 2 3.613 10- 2
I Btu/h
Btu/hp~h
W (watts)
kcal/kWh
2.931 X 10- 1
3.379 X 10- 1 J Btu
X

9.486 X 10- 4
Btu/hp·h kJ/kWh 1.4148 kg lb 2.2046
I Btu/kWh kcal/kWh 2.5198 X 10- 1 kg/cm 2 lb/in.2 1.422 X 101
Btu/kWh kJ/kWh 1.0548 kg-m ft·lb 7.233
~ Btu/lb kcal/kg 5.555 X 10- 1 kg/m 3 lb/ft 3 6.243 X 10- 2
1-' Btu/Jb kJ/kg 2.3256 km miles (statute) 6.214 X 10- 1
oc OF {°C X 9/5) + 32 kW hp 1.341
oc K oc + 273.18 I ft 3 3.531 X 10- 2
I cm 3 ft 3 3.531 X 10- 5 lb kg 4.536 X 10- 1
cm 3 in. 3 6.1o2 x 10- 2 lb/in.2 kg/cm 2 7.03 X 10- 2
OF oc lb/in. 2 6.8948 X 103
I ft m
(°F- 32) X 5/9
3.048 X 10- 1 lb-ft 2
Pa
kg-m 2 4.214 X 10- 1
ft 2 m2 9.29 X 10- 2 rim in ft 3/s 5.886 X 10- 4
I ft3
ft 3
I (liters)
m3
2.832 X 101
2.832 X 10- 2
1/min
m
galls
ft
4.403 X 10- 3
3.281
ft-lb Btu 1.286 x 10- 3 m2 ft 2 1.076 X 101
I ft-lb
ft/min
kg-m
km/h
1.383 x 1o-1
1.8288 X 10-2
m3
mile (statute)
ft 3
km
3.531 X 101
1.6093
ft 3/min 1/s 4.720 X 10-1 tons (metric) kg 1.0 X 103
I ft 3/min
gal
m 3/min
m3
2.832 x 10- 2
3.785 X 10- 3
tons (metric)
w
lb
Btu/h
2.205 X 103
3.4129
gal/min 1/s 6.308 X 10- 2 w Btu/min 5.688 x 10- 2
I hectares acres 2.471 w ft-lb/s 7.378 X 10- 1
hp (U.S.) kW 7.457 X 10- 1 w hp 1.341 X 10- 3
~ ~

. . .
~ 11'·

I
, .!, ./ - -...... • •
'I
'I 1983 GAS TURBINE REFERENCE LIBRARY
I
GE~-3400 STAG Combined-Cycle Operating Experience GER-3420 Replacement of Existing Gas Pipeline Compressor I
Ir GER-3401
GER-3402
STAG Combined-Cycle Product Line
STAG Combined-Cycle Plant Engineering and
GER-3421
Station Equipment
Adva11ced Materials and Coatings
- Construction Management GER-3422 GE MS7001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine

I 1
GER-3403 Steam Turbines for ST.AG Combined -Cycle Power
Systems
GER-3423
GER-3424
Electric Utility Gas Turbine Applications
Aircraft- Derivative Maintenance Practices
GER-3404 H~"a~ Recovery Steam Genera:ors fer STAG

'I GER-34'b
GER-3406
-~;ombined-Cycle Plants

?.'~.;llltrols for STAG Combined-Cycle Plants

STAG Combirted-Cycle Power Systems Reliability
GER-3425

GER-3426
GE LMSOOO Aircraft-Derivative Gas Turbine
System
GE Mark IV SPEEDTRONIC Control System
GER-3427 GE Data-Tronic Information and Control System

:J GER-3407

GER-3408
STAG Combined-Cycle Power Systems Operation
and Maintenance
STAG Combined-Cycle Fuel Flexibility and
GER-3428
GER-3429
Fuels Flexibility in Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines
Meeting the Quality Commitment with Experience
and Technology
Economic Evaluation
'I GER-3409 STAG Combined-Cycle Plants in Power Generation
Planning Analysis
GER-3430 Industrial Gas Turbine Cogeneration Application
Considerations

Combined-Cycle Repowering Mechanics and GER-3431 GE LM2500 Aircraft·Derivative Gas Turbine System
GER-3410
II GER-3411
Economics
STAG Combined-Cycle System Economics
GER-3432
GER-3433
GE MS9000 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine
Application of Gas Turbines in the Process Industry
GER-3412 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine Maintenance Practices
GER-3434 Recent Developments and Design Philosophy for

'I GER-3413
GER-3414
GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Ga$ Turbine
Gas Turbine Parts and Performance Upda~e GER-3435
Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines
GE Gas Turbine Multiple-Combustion System
Characteristics, Emission Control Techniques and
GER-3415 Compressor Selection to Match Gas Turbine Rated
Speed Hardware TechnolQgy

I GER-3416 GE Compressors for Pipeline and

Process Applications •
GER-3436
GER-3437
Project Management Concepts
Performance Characteristics
GER-3417 Gas Turbine and Compressor Testing for Mechanical

I ' GER-3418
Drive Systems
Generator Selection Criteria for Gas Turbine Power
GER-3438
GER-3439
Liquid Fuel Treatment Systems
Coal-F~red STAG Combined-Cycle Applications
Plants
GER-3451 Legislation and Regulations Affecting

I
•J
GER-3419 Gas Turbine Inlet Air Treatment Cogeneration

I
I~ CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC COM1'ANY GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
1900 Egllnton Avenue, East International Trading Operations

I Scarborough, Ontario, Canada 570 Lexlnaton AveriUe

New York City, New York 10022 USA

GAS TURBINE DIVISION

GENERAL EJ,.ECTRIC COMPANY
SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12345 USA

8/83 {3M)
GENERAL. ELECTRIC
U8A

1\
 -,- - , _).... . .. . ~~ '· .. ~ "

I
\Toi. II No. 2

II
1} I
time1 •
!
i

I"·

j'
GENERAL-~ ELECTRIC
Combined- Cycle U.S.A.

Power fyitemi Mar. 1982

~~~~~~~~~~~~==~==========~================~=-~=====================--.-~---
Stony Brook Plant Adds 3411\iiW
E
MMWECSTAG
COMBINED-CYCLE PLANT
11, DEDICATED
...
[j
fj1 November 21, 1981 was a very
1J special day for the Massachu-
- setts Municipal Wholesale
Electric Corporation (MMWEC)
[l: and their contractors who helped
,.~ bring the Stony Brook STAG 307
combined-cycle plant (Figure 1)
fl· from. a dream to a reality. At a
~· ceremony attended by officials
from state and local government
yr; and a host of other dignitaries,
t 1 the Stony Brook facility was
"' dedicated.
~ Built on a site once part of the
Westover Air Force Base in
J
i
I
I
I.
l
In total, the Stony Brook used for peaking power ( 170
station has a total capacity of 511 I~W). Start-up of the two simple~
MW (Figure 2). Power produced cycle peaking units is schedulec
comes from both the combined- for late 1982, but will probabl;y
cycle plant (341 MW) for occur earlier. Both the combined
cycle and the simple-cycle powe:
intermediate operation, and two
additional MS7001 gas turbines island and control equipment h
l
lj
l
l
I
I

Ludlow, Massachusetts, the

~~ plant is the first to be constructed
~: by MMWEC, whose offic1als are

1
t.j
especially proud of the fact that
r . the plant was built according to
schedule and under budget
ll'
estimates. \
II

[i
~!

Power from the plant is I

'~ transmitted along a 5.2 mile
power line to a substation owned .Il
r1 by Northeast Utilities, where it
a.;. then is transferred to the New
England Power Pool.
l
r ·;
-~ Copynght~ 19132 by G!')neral Electnc Co USA Fig. 1. MMWEC STAG 307' Combined Cycle I

-
,., . . . . . 4
CJ
 ----- '" I
~
• 4 • ••• -· ...,. ·-·--·-:::! --,..,...~"'4{~;._~..-.-::-: ;:~ .

,1·
enclosed in tha attractive
;fuilding shown in Figure 1.
~~uHding measurements are: 510
Teet long, 210 feet wide and 97 feet
high).
I Initially intended for operation
li])n distillate oil. the plant will
soon have dual fuel capability
J~With the installation of a gas
t::onversion unit. This will allow
M~IWEC management the option
of burning whichever fuel is
lnost economic,al and readily
li1.vailable u.t the time. The plant is
also capable of being converted
1to several different categories of
~coal-derived gas and liquid fuels.
AboutMMWEC
municipal utilities, and one
private electric company in a
neighboring state, are now
entitled to about 17 percent of the
combined-cycle output. In all,
more than 500,000 people are
served by Stony Brook.
MMWECand
Contractors
Com:m.ercial operation of
Stony Brook marks the
culmination of efforts dating
back to before 1977 when the site
was purchased. This was ·t.ne
period when MMWEC's environ-
mental and regulatory personnel
neering ser..rices. R. W. Beck was
responsible for the bid
specification. evaluation and
architect/ engineering services
for the switchyard and
transmission line.
Installation Schedule
The Stony Brook combined-
cycle plant was constructed
between September 1978 and the
fall of 1981, about 2lh years l
discounting a six-month L
suspension of construction due
to uncertainties with the interim
I!
j

e MMWEC serves 33 of the 40

municipal electric systems in
first set out to secure the
req~,dred permits, licenses and
approvals that the local, state GT GEN
HRSG PHA~E 1

~the Sta,te of Massachusetts. It and federal governments rnust

~}was created in 1969 and in 1976
·was designated a public
corporation. Owned ..:.nd
grant before a new power plant
can get under way. Since then,
MMWEC's chief role has been. to
I
I
eoperated by the communities oversee and monitor con-
'they serve, many of these struction progress and to assure I·
utilities have a history that dat.ss continued compliance to all
l!back more than 70 years. federal and state regulatory
~ Some of the utilities operate
sm~ll power plants that supply a
requirements. ----------
The three principal contrac-
~~portion of the electricity they
~~need, but most h s.1ve tradi tiona.lly
1
tors who contributed to the Stony
Brook installation are General
1>-51-0
GT GEN PHASE 2
purchased electric power from Electric, Bechtel Power
"'privately- owned electric
f·~utiliti.as. To meet their need for
Corporation, and R.W. Beck. GE
supplied all major power island
N-O
GT GEN
~lba$e load power, the members of equipn1ent, including plant
MM'WEC have jointly purchased controls, wj ~h Bechtel furnish- Fig. 2. MJvfWEC Stony Brook
fllportions of large power plants Powerplant
'tthat other m.ajor utilities are
ing principal architecf/engi-
I
. . constructing. Intermediate and 1
. ~peaking power plants, on the I
~~other h ' ..nd~ are usually smaller "
· ~~and less expensive to construct t
than base load plants. To meet
~
Ir
~1 needs for this portion of their
,. 4i . I
~~daily load cycle, the Stony Brook t•
plan1; was constructed.
~·
Ef Of the 33 municipal electric
Ji systems compn~ing MMWF.C!, 25
· decided in 1976 to participate in
t
r
the Stony Brook project. E:i.ch
~ pvrchased part of the output
•laccording to the future demand
I
they thought would be required. !
[~.After each utility took the share
~i'it needed, some intermediate
,. power still ramained which I
Il
.
[~ MMWEC offered to sell to other
If\ New England utilities. Several
Fig. 3. 3tony Brook -1979
Pa.ge 2

-
~ rules for the federal Powerplant
t
and Industrial Fuel Use Act
" (PIFUA) of late 1978.
I In the fall of 1978, heavy earth-
moving equipment began
changing the complexion of the
I; site to a cleared, leveled and
~ graded plane.
Then, in mid-1979, main
11 foundations were poured and a
[;i railroad SJ?Ur built to transport
construction equipment and
. hardware to the site. Through the
!I rest of the y~ar, with com?letion
a of foundations, erection of
structural steel and work on the
1: fuel oil and water ta.nks
~ commenced (Figure 3). By year-
end, gas turbines and heat Fig. 4. Steam Turbine-Generator
W recovery steam generators
1,1 (HRSGs) were placed in the
plant. 4). All generators are hydrogen- efficiently when following
In early 1980, installation of cooled. system load at peak (P), base (B)
• siding on the main power block By any measurement, the or any part-load condition with
m, building beg·an. By summer, roof performance of this combined one, two or three of the gas
decking was completed and cycle must be considered turbines running in c;&mbined-
• progress continued on the outstanding, and will save the cycle service. It's interesting to
~. siding, concrete cooling tower, New England states thousands of note that at today's fuel oil prices
-...' the tanks and stacks. Work on the gallons of fuel oil yearly. one point in efficiency will
transmission line and switch- Guaranteed net equipment heat conserve roughly !1/2 million
~ yard began also. The fall of 1980 rate on oil is a low 7480Btu/kWh dollars yearly in fuel in a plant
,.,.., saw the installation of the steam (LHV) at the plant rating point. the size of Stony Brook \\then run
turbine, generator, steam turbine Plant performance tests have in intermediate service.
ff condenser, and completion of already been taken and show tha.t The combined cycle also offers
~ fuel and water tanks. all guarantees have been another advantage important for
Then, in early 1981, the exceeded--output, heat l'ate and mid ·range operation-a quick
transmission line and switch- emissions. response to demand. Stony
(1 yard were finished and systems That, howeve:r, is only part of
the story. Excellent part-load
Brook's gas turbines can each
come on-line within ten minutes
~ tests of the plant's electrical and
mech'anical subsystems were heat rate is also achieved by the and can be joined by the steam
It conducted. Finally, the gas combined cycle to meet system turbine within one hour. From a
f,l; turhi!!s:; and combined-cycle requirements. Figure 5 shows completely cold start, such as
equipment were tested. By late that the plant operates after a p:L"olonged period of non-
fir November, with power being
1· generated, the dedication and
·far-sightedness of the MMWEC
staff had paid off. A major step
1\ had been made in MMWEC's
~ pursuit of energy independence.
I
I

f The Power Island I

CC(1G~
COMBINED CYCLE
OPERATING)
,. The Stony Brook S'l'AG 307
f shaft
1
combined cycle ~."'.; of the multi-
design.. The syste1n has
three MS7001 gas turl-.-=ues, each 20 40 60 80 100 110
f: with its ow11 unfired HRSG, NET EQUIPMENT OUTPUT-% OF BASE RATING
Pi, which, in combination, produce
steam for a straight-condensing,
~~ nunreheat steam turbine (Figure Fig. 5. Estimated Performance

Page 3 11

:J

use, start-up requires a
maximum of only three hours.
I' This compares to a period of a
1 day or more for a large coal or
nuclear base-load plant to be
started after it has been shut
~ down.
Plant Control
r Stony Brook is a highly auto-
mated facility employing the
latest in General Electric STAG
I~ control technology for safe,
I~ reliable and efficient operation.
A team of operators, headed by
I,;~,, a shift superV'isor, works each
1!. shifi and v:hen instructed to do so
by the dispatchers of the New
England Power Exchange, bring
( the equipment on-line to help
meet New England's need for
electricity.
The control room 0perator
actually runs the plant with the
help of an assistant operator. The
other member of the four-rnan
J~ crew needed to run the plant Qn a
daily basis is the auxiliary
operator. This operator works in
I'; the plant itself, monitoring
~ equipment first-hand.
Inside thf} spacious control
e room (Figure 6) operators have
l-~ at their finger tips an array of
gauges, digital readouts, lights
and switches to monitor key
t..• indicators to assure smooth
running of the entire plant.
Data from sensors anrl
~ instrumentation throughout the
~b plant first pass through cables to
the analog control system
located in the cable spreading
t room. There computer cabinets
for the major components
translate data into information
fiE pertaining to au to-start,
~~ communication and control
fvnctions. Finally, after
If"' :recording the data, the General
fjl] Electric 1'..1ark III computer
a"' system reports the condition of
the turbines, HRSGs, pumps.
r~ valves and ancillary equipment
to the control room where the
operators respond through the
console interfaces.
tJ
PI Permits
r;:: No pre sent at i on of t h e
Page 4
'I ~
,,,,..,.,._.~.-"-
...1~~'
MMWEC Stony Brook plant
would be complete without
mention of the job accomplished
by MMWEC's environmental and
regulatory staff who secured the
required permits, licenses and
approvals that had to be granted
prior to plant operation.
Many changes were being
made in state and federal
regulations during the years
1975 to 1980. Because of the
changes in regulations being
promu-lgate~. MMWEC's effort to
license Stony Brook marked
several firsts.
- It was the first generating
facility granted approval
from the state's Energy
Facilities Siting Council.
- It was the first tested ac-
cording to new and more
stringent state environ-
mental codes: and,
It was the first to be scruti-
nized by the federal EPA
under its prevention of sig-
nificant deterioration rules.
The real challenge for the
MMWEC staff, however, came
wben Congress enacted the
PIFUA which restricted use of oil
and gas fuel in new plants.
MMWEC was caught in a
transition with equipment
purchased, ground broken, but
nothing installed. Financing and
construction efforts came to a
halt during the first half of 1979
~-··
Fig. 6. Plant Control Room
as existing-plant status was
sought for the plant. Finally,
through the outstanding efforts
of the MMWEC staff, the federal
Department of Energy ruled that
the preliminary work and
contracts for the combined cycle ,.
qualified it as an existing plant,
excluding it from the Act.
We at Gener;;tl Electric are
proud to have contributed to the
job done by the folks at MMWEC.
The customers served by
MMWEC should be pleased as
well. The Stony Brook plan c now
ranks as the world's most
efficient oil-burning electric
utility power plant.
rSpecial ac~owledgement to
MM\\n~::c foT, information
obtained from their dedication
ceremony literature.
STAG times
General Electric Co.
Gas Turbine Division
Bldg #500/Rm 237
1 River Rd.
Schenectady, N.Y. 12345
Dial Comm 8 •235-3703
•Bob Alff
Managing Editor
• Mike l'AcCullough
Production Mgr.
 Vol. I No.1

time1 !
GENERAL 8 ELECTRIC
L
L

Combined-Cycle U.S.A.

Power fyrtemr July 1981

~
~t
I

&estern Farmers STAG 100!!

-'
B • • • The Most Efficient Power Producers in Our System."
I
0

Maynard Human, General

Manager, Western Farmers
Electric Cooperative

J:l Maynard Human, GM, Western electric service to its 19-member of Oklahoma City in the State of
I.!Jarmers Electric Co-op, says, systems at the lowest possible Oklahoma, USA.
"Since our three 100-MW STAG rate. To assist in that purpose,
tl¥.stems came on-line in late Western installed three STAG A Showplace
~!'7· they've been the most combined cycle systems (300-
efficient power producers in our MW total) at their Anadarko Described as the most effiCient
stem. When we first made the plant and started producing natural gas-fired plant generat-
cision to go with the STAG power in the Fall of 1977. This ing in the U.S. today, the MS7001
mbined cycle (CC), we were a entire facility cost Western S'rAG plant is truly a showplace
bit concerned over the issue of approximately 67 million for the entire industry. Both
",omplexity, s.ince our plant dollars, or $223/ KW. Anadarko is domestic and foreign visitors
E~erato~s hadn •t had experience Western's headquarters and is make regular tours through the
-..-;rJ.th th1s type of plant. That located some 50 miles southwest facility (Fig. 1) With the excep-
concern has proven to be un-
f:?unded, as must be the case or
~;Te couldn~t possibly have gotten
the service from the plants that
we have. As a matter of fact, con-
(}ary to initial thinking, plant
ltlperation has been quite simple,
rather than complex. Looking
r~ack, we realized when the
~ecisi6n was made to purchase
._...........
dTAG that our customers were
the in1portant consideration. The
[jow capital investll?-ent and 1 •
;)perating costs of a STAG plant
are their best deal. I'm sure if
other
I
utilities knew more about
:;TAG they'd make the s~me
[
.tlecision. We're certainly glad we
did."
f,J Western Farmers Electric
~:.~ooperative is a wholesale
power production and trans-
mission cooperative organized
r jn 1941 to provide reliable
~\opyright ©1981 by General Electnc Co. USA
Figure 1- Western Farmers STAG Building I
,!

______
ll

"''-·~··- ..... ,.., _____________ __,..._

11

1
:

• t ;;a::
.~
:"'''iF':"!' 1"1\l;.il;~:<,;¥1~;:'"~ \f.' .

"
 .·on of the heat :recovery boilers
Jld inlet structures, all STAG
e.attractive
quipment is located in an
building measuring
1~5 feet long by 141 feet wide a.nd
Ll~ feet high. The overhead crane
is sized to lift 50 tons. Normal
~:pe:rations crew for the three
llrAG units is only three men per
IJ.hour shift. An a.ir-conditioned
control room (Fig. 2) is located at
- second-story elevation on the

~·est end of the plant overlogking

11 three units so that operators
will have good visible access to
'}1 STAG systems and support-
L~g appurtenances.
As guaranteed (Fig. 3), the
f?TAG cycle is proving to be very
P{ffici~nt, 1So/o better than
L:Vestern's best previous power-
generating unit and 22o/o better
pP.an the average for two existing
uas/ oil fired generating units.
93% Availability
East year, availability of the
STAG plant and ST.A.G island
rr. as 93.3o/o and 94.8o/o respective-
ti:'Y"·· As of Dec. :n. 1980 the three
STAG units have accumulated
60,251 operating hours, resulting
rJn a use factor of 82.9o/o. The units
IJvere in reserve standby
approximately 10.4o/o of the time
~r 2, 730 hours. Fired starts, to
r ~late, total 768. Maintenance costs
~;,:have been averaging 0.37 mills
per KWHR over a three-year
r.:;:>eriod (1978 thru 1980). Plant
t;joad factor in 19SO was 79o/o.
· · All three STAG systems
utilize the MS7001 gas turbine
f).nd are equipped with dual fuel
~operating capability (natural
gas and #2 distillate oil.) Each
-c_-STAG CC is configured in a
,\
Figure 2 - STAG Control R01om
response to their system
demand. These factors and
others continue to impact very
favorably on Western's genera-
tion economics and the savings
they're able to pass back to their
customers.
But where did the background
and experience come from
leading to a plant like Western
Farmers and the othsr major'
STAG installations? That's a
question often asked, and one
STAG times would like to
answer.
Early STAG Plants
The forerunner of STAG plants
dates back to the early 1960's
when combined cycles for
industrial and utility applica-
tions began being installed.
These ra.nged from process ·
steam plants to electric utility
repowerin 1g applications where
existing steam plants were
operated u~~ing new gas turbines
and heat recovery steam genera-
tors to replace worn-out power
boilers. Four small utilities in
the U.S. also purchased complete
new combined cycles called
STAG plants. The ratings of
these first ST.AG plants ranged
from 14 MW to 35 MW. STAG
times recently checked the
I l.
operating history of the plants
and found that f!'ach has been
base loaded since installation
I
with an average use factor of I
87.1! That's right. The plants
have operated 305,000 hours out
of a. possible 350,000 hours since
I
be h. g installed. .

~.·~ingle-shaft arrangement (Fig. I

ilt4) with the gas turbine, j
generator, and steam turbine on
r~~ single shaft. Inatallation of the
Lt. :'modular and highly factory
il11)ackaged components (Fig. 5)
_,.
Weste:rn Farmers Guaranteed Performance
Natural Gas
l I
results in an indoor installation
Station Heat Rate
['lWhich is highly accessible~ neat,
~e:J!and structured for e&se of
~operator surveillance and
Net Station o~~tput
(X¥\')
BTU/KWHR
(KC~..L/KWHR)
I
f p1aintaina.bility. -----=----·--------------
t r!
-!Quick Response to Base Plant 274,230 8410
7580
(2119) HHV
(1909) LHV
(2084) :s--=·rv
I
L
l
!
Demand Peak Plant (Est.) 300,390 8270 lI
i
7450 (1878) LHV
1-t\vestern's management con-
tinues to praise the STAG plant's
r rase of operation, very low
________________________
...__ ..........._._...,,,•. ------"
~,·---::-:.:..··
'i
l

l.fznaintena.nce, and quick start-up .

F~ ~gure"~

'.)¥

··----·~ ··--.-----~---
l'
}
'i
-
 "' l'

I1
l
. .
..
' • - 8 .
. .
·, y'. \') ' . 0
·'~. ~..,;.o·,,t1 r . .... P "! ..... • '-~~~· -~"-·-----....,.....,..-~.~~.:....e~•-•~~....,.._,___.._,__,,........_:,~,':."-l'..:-,.<~~....,l.
l<O'O>c,;._ ..... . ·~-- -'-' .
--"'>"'N_
...._ ........._-_.:::_:_.'---'--·'-"----·~------'-·-•

r~arge STAG Plants

... The first of the larger STAG CC
'~~ants, ra.ted 100 MW and larger,
lias purchased in 1971. The ad-
vent of these plants was made
-"ossible by introduction of large,
t
·:~ghly efficient gas turbines.
;lnce then, improvements and
upratings have become avail- l'j

r=>le which can help to solve

L;day's utility requirements,
namely, to meet higher fuel costs
and increased environmental
f!!:straints. These improvements
l..1ade during the 70's have
optimized the STAG combined-
-JYcle system for current .c~ndLi­
ons and those expectea w
evail over the life of the next
generation of plants.
"fj·Beyond the design innova-
LJons and evolutionary develop .. Figure 4 - WF's Single-shaft STAG CC
ments of the 1970's, product
r:Ja.turity gained through
f-·,xtensive operating experience
Lias proven to be the chief contri-
butor positioning STAG CC
gants for the next decade.

Twenty-five Plants
rrperating
In the early 70's, the only STAG
raants operating were the four
~ ,lants mentioned earlier. Now
tnere are 25 in conar.nercial
operation. Total operating hours
wxceed 600,000.

MS7001 Availability
C 92o/o
In 1980, General Electric
r'dS7001 gas turbines shipped
I ~fter June 1976 performed at an Figure 5- WF's STAG CO- Viewed From Control Room
· htverage total plant availability
of 92o/o. This represents a sub- availability rates of 95o/o , or
f -':tantial improvement from an better.
L;.vailability of 80o/o demonstrated GT's in Continuous
by earlier versions of the gas Duty· Continuous-Duty
. turbine in the mid-1970's. The STAG's
) ,ta.in can be attributed directly to But can gas turbines operate
L!he utili:W industry who part- acceptably in long, continuous What about STAG? Is anyone
icip~ted cooperatively, with GE. duty? The answ~r is most running in continuous servicQ?
r ... o improve the serlice record of definite!~ In peaking duty, the Last year, in addition to 1Nestern
i _his gas turbine. The 24-MW
1~85001 gas turbine, first intro-
daily starting and stopping is
very challenging to the systems
Farmers, who operated for
almost 7500 hours, Houston
duced much earlier than the and components comprising a Lighting & Power, another U.S.
i lffS7001, continues_ a.s the gas turbine installation. In con- utility, also ran for well over 7000
L~,ndustry availability leader. In tinuous service, with fewer hours. For the utility who needs
1980, the MS5001 fleet performed transient periods, duty is less base load power, the design in-
a.t an average availability of harah. Many industrial units, in tegrity of the STAG combined
; 12'!
1 _J3.17o. continuous operation, often have cycle is ready to be challenged.
~

--..--1...............~ -··--.....-.....-

·'
 ,u
··:\

....-..=---.. . . . . . . . ....
~~---......
-
..__:;,

""""""';.....;...._:,_"'--;.._.._---~·~S·'.~~' I
"'
-,_.;. ';. .,.-. ,:. . ._ ~,.\~- "-'"'-•· -~ !\1 '' -
·~----~~ ;·:f:.:.=.~~m;~·· -~--:. ,.
:::::

Multi-shaft plants came about

!righ A 'Jailability as an approach to improve
operating flexibility. These
Recorded for MS7001 syste1ms ha.ve two or more gas
:~··.TAG Plants 'turbines, each with its own heat
: I
I . • recovery steam geilerator, which
Operating performance of all in combination produce steam
r7001 gas turbines in STAG for a single, non-reheat, con-
i ;rvice last year ~,veraged 91.3o/o. d~nsing steam tubine-generator.
, ut more significantly, average Gas turbines can be used inde-
overall STAG plant availability pendently or in combination ST
ir-ceeded 85%. Experience shows with steam cycle operation. Wide
La.t operating availability has swings in load are practical r.vith
improved to whe;re it now little loss in sfficiency.
aJCceeds conventional steam Single Shaft
]~ants and nuclear, also. Ava.il-
l\;.ility is a big reason for the A Definite Future for
current interest in STAG, and S~rAG PLANTS i:

"":aere are quite a number of other l

;

O aso~s a~ well. For example, ~l_le

mb1ned cycle consumes only
about 40'o/o of the water necessary
STAG has matured sincra the late
1960's an.d continues to gain
lI
1
[,.

m
'i
popularity while accumulating !
run a conventional steam valuable operating fJXperience
L.,lant. F'a.ctory pack~ging results i
in shnrt 21h year installation burning petroleum oil and gas

n
fuel:s. Demand will contine to
cles, with capital costs being grow rapidly during the 1980's
ughly 75o/o of that for a with. transition to other fuels,
nventiona.l plant. STAG also
including coal-derived fuels,
offers the most efficient power

q cle commercially· available.

pically in the range of 43-45o/o
LHV) and sometimes even
higher, depending upon fuel cost.
made in some parts of the world.

A STAG COl'tfBINED
nuel saving is roughly 10-20o/o CYCLE REA~LLY IS A
Lblative to operation Qf a modern
steam turbine ga.s or oil-burning POWER GENERATION Multi Shaft
nlant. ALTERNATIVE THAT
f""i Some utility planners are still
bJaluctant to consider the YOU CAN DEPEND
combined-cycle plant because of Figure 6- STAG Combined-Cycle
r.,Jncern over complexity. This
ON Configurations
LJar is disappearing fast, wit~..
plant operators at Western
Farmers and other utilities being
rome of STAG's strongest
~upporters. Houston Lighting &
Power operators have been heard
r~? say that they wo~ld rather
i ~tart their STAG com':nned cycle Special Thanks to Contributors STAG times
~1an the conventional plant at of this Issue:
the same site. General Electric Co.
,.._1

L;wo Ba~ic Designs • Maynard Human, Gen. Mgr., Gas Turbine Division
Western Farmers Electric
r, The STAG combined cycle is Cooperative Bldg #500/Rm 237
1 ffered in two basic designs, the 1 River Rd.
L.iJngle-shaft and multi-shaft Schenectady, N.Y. 12345
concepts (Fig, 6). The single- •John Stieg, Mgr., Power Dial Comm 8 •235-3703
r-·~aft STAG, such as at Western Production, Western Farmers
l .armers, has the gas turbine, ·Electric Cooperative •Bob Alff
~enerator and steam turbine on Managing Editor
the same shaft. The entire system
l ";>erates as a single unit, with the • Dick Mathias. Gen. Sales En gr., • Mike McCullough
~as turbine controls managing GE Co .• EUSD Pro--A-- M 00"r,
"'.,~ "ll.....
uUt;LJ.V.l

speed and load functions, and the

steam portion operating as a
1
~.ave unit.
 I
GER-3401

GAJ TURBINE REFERENCE LIBRARY

CbrilbiOed-Cvcle·~
·._ -Po~er /ye.rtemf
? . ·...
_........
' :, \'
• <

'•' CONTENTS
•'' PAGE
INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
'• ,,

····STAG Combined-Cycle PRODUCT LINE ...............................................

STEAM CYCLE ................................................
2
2
j
;.

',,

··· .· ·Prodtict L'ine STAG COMBINED-CYCLE

MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................... 5
1
PLANT OPERATION ........................................ 9
!
PLANT ARRANGEMENT3 .............................. 11
I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ...........................
INSTALLATION ................................................
12
13
L
leroy 0. Tomlinson UTILITY LOAD GROWTH ............................... 13
CONCLUSION .................................................. 13
Manager-Combined-Cycle Engineering
A TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS IS
r
Richard S. Rose
INCLUDED AT THE F.ND OF THIS PUBLICATION
ll
Senior En~-;ineer-Comblned-Cycle Applications
13EiS Turbine Engineering and t
Manufacturing Department
Gas Turbine Division
Schenectady, New York
I.NTRODUCTION
STAG* is the designation for the Genera! Electric pre-
engineered combined-cycle systems for electric power
l
r
!

David L. Chase generation. STAG is an acronym for STeam And Gas.

The STAG combined-cycle product line combines the
Manager- Thermal Systems Engineering product lines o~ General Electric gas turbines. steam tur-
Medium Steam Turbine:-Generator Department bines, and unfired heat recovery steam generators
Industrial Elnd Marine (HRSGs). General Electric manufactures. guarantees
Steam Turbine Division system performance. warrants the equipment. and pro-
Lynn, Ma~,;sachusetts vides follow-up serll'ice for all of the major equipment.
Single-source responsibility by General Electric ensures
the operator a matched system of eomponents that per-
forms properly as a total system.

GENERAL fJ ELECTRIC The outstanding attribute of the STAG combined~

cycle plant is economical power generation. The tea·
tures that contribute to this basic characteristic are sum"
marized in Fig. 1.
''
~ <

•. Copyright
© 195:l by General ~lectrlc Co. Printed in USA
• Trademark of General Electric Co., USA.
=-~.----~----·~------------~--------~

I
 1

STAG COMBINED CYCLE FEATURES SINGLE-SHAFT STAG COMBINED CYCLE

BLOCK DIAGRAM
• HIGH THERMAL EFFICIENCY
• LOW INSTALLED COST
• FUEL FLEXIBILITY - WIDE RANGE OF
GAS AND LIQUID FUELS
• LOW OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST
e OPERATING FLEXIBILITY - BASE, MID-RANGE,
DAILY START
• HIGH RELIABILITY
• HIGH AVAILABILITY
• SHORT INSTALLATION TIME
I
l.
'
i

• HIGH EFFICIENCY IN SMALL ST

r:
J_,j.l
CAPACITY INCREMENTS

GT085NA
GT0201511
, r
t

c Figure 1 Figure 3

PRODUCT LINE HRSG units that supply steam through a header to a

A complete pre-engineered STAG combined-cycle
product line is available for economical, reliable power
generation. The product line spans a wide range of
capabilities for both 50 and 60 Hz applications. A '~>.lide
range of configurations Is available with standard fea-
tures that enable the systems to be adapted to suit the
economic requirements of each application while using
standard pre-engineered blocks. Figure 2 illustrates the
system designations used to specify the STAG product
line configurations.
separate steam turbine generator unit as illustrated by
Fig. 4.
The 50 Hz STAG combined-cycle product line ratings
are illustrated in Figs. 5, 6, and 7. The equipment in the
::>tandard systems is shown in Fig. 8. The 60 Hz STAG
product line ratings are similarly presented in Figs. 9, 10,
and 11, and the equipment is shown in Fig. 12.
STEAM \":YCLE

c The two bas1c STAG combined-cycle configurations

are single-shaft and multishaft. The single-shaH STAG
unit is shown in the simplified block diagram, Fig 3, and
compnses a gas turbine, an unfired HRSG, and a steam
C, turbine. Both turbines are coupled to a double-ended
generator in a tandem arrangement on a single shaft.
Muitishaft STAG systems have multiple gas turbine/
The stElam cycle selection is a key to an efficient.
reliable, low-cost, easily operated, and conveniently
maintained corrbined-cycle power generation plant. The
combined cycle is a unique power generation system
because the simplest steam sysit:'m is usually the most
economical system. This steam cycle is the single-
pressure heat recovery feedwater heattng (HRFH-1)
steam cycle shown in Fig. 13.

C. J

I
.,~·
STAG CC SYSTEM DESIGNATION MULTISHAFT STAG COMBINED CYCLE

S
3
STAG CC
NUMBER OF GAS TURBINES
l
u; I

HRSr,
0 NOT SlONIFICAPH v . i

9
E
GAS TURBINE FRAME SIZE
GAS TURBINE MODEL
GT I --itJ~
_r;;;;-, HRS<. ._A~
I
.GT~~J~~
[>.<t~ HR50 l
Gl I - ......J-. I
<>---~
~HRSG
GT
OT08599D C:TDJ0138

Figure 2 Figure 4

I'
 ,,_j
·-

50 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE EQUIPMENT

50 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE PERFORMANCE
NATURAL GAS FUEL
STAG
SYSTEM
S·205P
NET PO~ER
(MW)
71 3
NET HEAT RATE • ;.HV
tBTU/1\;WHI
8720
(KJ/KWHI
9200
_,_.
...,,.· LHV

39.1
_)_
STAG
GAS TURSINE
1-fRSG BOX
BOX SIZE'
NO
STEAM TURBINE
LSB' LENGTH
EXH
IN CONFIG
,:i-40!\P 142 6 8720 9200 39.1
SYSTEM NO. FRAME
~__!:!_ "" EXH ~M

S-205 2 MS5t'OIP 11 • 418 3 3S. 14.6 14.3 363 "-XIAL

S·206B 105 2 7730 8160 44.2
5·405 4 MS5001P 2 11 a 48 3 35 I 14.6 23 584 AXIAL
S·406B 2087 7790 8220 <13.8
S-206 2 11560018 1 11. ~8 3 :!:1! 14.6 20 SOB AXIAL
S·109E 151 5 7080 8310 43,3
S-406 4 MS6001B 2 tla48 335a14.6 23 564 AXIAL
S·209i: 304 0 7860 B290 43.4
S-109 IIS9001E 1 II a 56 3 35 • 17 1 ~3 5!H "~I~L
S-309E 4561; 7850 8281) ~3.S
s-209 2 IIS9001E 2 11. 56 3.35. 17.1 2 20 508 SlOE
NOTES 2 26 58~ SlOE
S-309 3 Msg.::>otE 3 I1 I 56 3 35 I 17 1
I. AMBIENT AIR CONDITIONS
TEitiiPERA TURE ' 59F(ISCI NOTES
!'1\ESSURE • 14 7 PSIAI1 OIJilT~I
2. $T£AM TURBINE EXH PRESS • 2 5 IN Hg.t.IS3 I lUI HgA) 1 BOX SIZE • GAS SID( OIUEUSIONS
3 RATIHGS ARE ES)·IMATEO HET FOR PLANT WITH MECHANICAL OR,,FT COOLING TOWER 2 LSB - LAST STAGE BUCKET
41. SING~E PRESSURE LEVEL HEAT ReCOVER'( F£EOWATFR HEATING ·~YCLE
GT08801A
GT0860C8•1

Figure 5 Figure a

50 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE RATINGS 60HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE RATINGS

CRUDE OIL FUEL NATURAL GAS FUEL
STAG
SYSTEM
NET POwER
__ (II.!!'.!._
NET HEAT RATE· LHV
(BTU/KWH! .J!:!_IKWHl
"'7,.- LHV
_ill_ ~
STAG NE"T POWER
IMWl
NET HEAT RATE· LHV
IBTU/KWHo IKJ/KWHI _,_.._,_
...,,.·LHV

5-205P 69 9 8820 9310 S·205P 71 3 8720 9200 39 1

38.7
S·405P 139 9 8820 9310 S-4051' 142 6 8720 9200 32 1
;18.7
5·2068 105 2 7730 8160 4~ 2
S·206!l 91 6 8220 8680 .tii.S
S·406B 208 7 7790 8:020 43 8
S·<i06B 181 8 8290 8740 ~11.2

S• 109E 1~2 0 8380 8840 S•I07E 106 :J 7630 8050 44 1

~0.7
5·207£ 216 8 7620 8040 44.8
S·209E 264 8 8360 8820 c;o a
s-3o9E 3971 BJSO 8810 S-407E 433 8 7670 8040 ... 8
40 9
NOTES IJOTES
I Alol8lENT AI.R CONDITIONS 1 AIIBit::l~T
AIR CONDITIONS
TEMPERATURE· 59F(15CJ TEMPERATURE • 59Fl15Cl
PRESSURE· 14 7 PSIA(I 013 ATY! PRESSURE • 14 1 PSIAtl 013 A1loll
2. STEAM TURBINE C:XH PReSS • 2 5 IN Hg ... (63 1 Mlol HgAI 2 STEAM TURBINE EXii PRESS - ~ ~ ;~ ~gAtti~ Zi :.:~ Mg#..l
3. RATINGS ARE ESTIMATED NET F'lR PLANT WITH MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER 3 RATINGS ME ESTIMATED NET FOR PLANT WITH MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER
4. SINGLE PRESSURE LEVEl HEAl 'iECOVERY FEEOWATER HEATING CYCLE 4 St"!GLE PRESSURE LEVEL HE;AT AECOVEOt HEDWATER HEATING CYCLE
5 ~~rfN~~~gEsJEAIIl REDUIRE~EN.TS FOR FUEL HEATING AND PROCESSING GT08&0 A I>T08605A
2

Figure 6 t:igure 9

50 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE RATINGS 60 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE RATINGS

RESIDUAL OIL FUEL CRUDE OIL FUEL

~
STAG NE:T POWER
(II WI
NET HEAT RATE· LHV
I~TU~ (;<J/KWHI
...,,.·LHV
__
, .._1_ ~
STAG NET POWER
I~'HI
NET HEAT RATE • LHV
IBTUtKWHI ~~ __,_,_
"1,.- .
LHV

S·:I05P !i9 7 8850 9330 3B6 S•205P 69 9 8820 9310 3B 7

S·405P 139 5 8850 93:10 38.6 S·405P 139 9 8870 9310 387
S-2068 88 3 8300 8760 41.2 S•206B 9.16 8820 8680 41 5
S·406B 175, B360 8820 40 8 S·~06tl 181 8 8290 8740 412
S•I09E 127 1 8~60 8920 40.3 5·107£ 94 3 8120 8570 42.0
S·209E 255 1 84<40 8900 40.4 S-2'07E 1118 a B110 8560 42 I
S·309E 383 I 8430 8890 4!1> 5 S·407E 3718 0110 85·60 42.1

~ ~
1 AMBIENT AlP CONDITIONS 1 ,4oMB lENT AIR CONDITIONS
TEMPERATURE • 59F(15CI TEliPECIAlURE • 59F115Cl
PRESSURE • 14 7 PS1AIUl13 ATMI PRESSURE • lA 7 PSIA11 013 Alii•
2. STEJIW TURBINE El(H PRESS • 2 5 IN H!!A(63 1 Mil HgA) 2 STEAM TUR8l~E EXH PRESS • 2 5 IH llg~lf;:l !i MM Hn~l
3. RATINGS ARE ESTIMATED NET FOR PLANT WITH NATURAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER 3 RATI1jGS ARt> ESTIMATED HET FOR PL/.Nl' WITH IIECtloiNICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER
4. SINGLE PRESSUII£ LEVEL HEAT P.ECOVERY FEEOWAT~ t HEATING CYCLE 4 :liNGLE PRESSURE LEY£L HEAT RECOVERY FE£0\I'ATER HEIITING CYCLE.
5 :~~~Rct~gEtlEAM REOUIRUIENTS FM FUEL HEATING AND !'ROCESSING GTOI&Ol.r, 5 POWER AND STEAII R£0UIRF.IIENTS FO!l FUEL HEATING ANO PROCESSING
ARE INCLUDED GTOB&O&.t.

Figure 7 Figure 10

3
 '
t
f,'

60 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE RATINGS SINGLE PRESSURE HEAT RECOVERY

FEE OW ATER HEATING (HRFH-1} STEAM CYCLE
STAG
RESIDUAL OIL FUEL
NET POWER N!;T HEAT RAI'E • LHV 1
_:m__
·LflV LEGEND
• •

::. ~-i; ...,--- -.,

ECON.;-
IBTU/KWHI ~WH)
SYSTEM (M\':1
r=..-
S-205P
S-405P
S-2068
• S-4068
69.7
139 5
88.3
1151
8850
8850
8300
8360
9330
9330
8760
8820
38.6
38.6
41.2
40.8
- - - - STEAM
- - WATER
- - AIR. GAS
-·-FUEL
'HRSG
EVAP
[-
_.;-
r

~~_;1}};::-
-- J!
__1,.-_____ _
--------- ----~
I
I
S·107E
S·207E
90.9
181.9
8190
8180
8940
8630
41.6
41.7
EXHAUST
GAS i I
S-407E 3640 8180 8630 41.7
FUEL·
• t
NOTES
1. AMBIENT AIR CONDITIONS
TE:.IPERATURE • 59FI15CI
0-{:>~Tl;AM
GEHER,.TORS 6 TURBIN£
I
I
PRESSURE· 14 7 PSIA(1.<113 ATMI
2. ST(AMTURBINE EXH PRESS • '2 5 IN HgA(63.1 UM HgA)
DA
CONDENSER d
3. RATINGS ARE ESTIMATED NET FOR PLAHT WITH MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER
4, SINGLE PRESSURE LEVEL HEAT RECOVERY FEEDWATER HEATING CYCLE
S. POWEil AI(O STE.-u REQUIREMENTS FOR FUEL HEATitlG AND PROCESSING
ARE INCLUDED GTD&6071!
o--
CONO
F.W
PUMP
PUMP GTOB361A

Figure 11 Figure 13
I
I
[ The HRFH-1 steam cycle has an unfired HRSG, with
finned tube s~perheater, evaporator, and economizer
(510 oc) total temperature. The simple steam cycle and
modest steam conditions enable the application of sim-
sections, all with convection heat transfer. All feedwater
heating is performed in the HRSG economizer, and the
condensate is deaerated in the condenser, which elimi-
ple plant auxiliaries.
The HRFH-1 cycle is economical for a wide range of
fuel costs and other generation economic factors. It can
I
nates closed and open extraction feedwater heaters with t
be adjusted for low-cost fuels by reducing the amount of
their auxiliaries and controls. When burning sulfur-free surface in the HRSG and reducing the steam turbine
or low-sulfur fuels. such as natural gas, the final feedwa-
ter temperature is the condensate temperature. To pre-
vent corrosion of the economizer tubes when burning
fuels containing sulfur, the economizer tube wall tem-
generator capacity. This capability reduces the cost and
efficiency to provide the most economical generation for
a specific set of economic conditions.
"
\V I
perature is maintained above the exhaust gas acid dew Alternate cycles are available for specific fuels and
point by recirculating water froiTi the evaporator drum to economic conditions. These are the two-pressure heat
the economizer inlet. recovery feedwater heating (HRFH-2) steam cycle and
the extraction feedwater heating (EFH) cycle. The EFH
The steam turbine for this cycle is a simple. non-
cycle is available with one deaerating feedwater heater
reheat. condensing unit. Steam conditions at the throttle
(EFH-1) and two feedwater heaters-one closed and one
are typically 850 psig (59.6 bar) pressure and 950 oF
deaerator (EFH-2).
The HRFH-2 cycle. Fig. 14, h~s the highest efficiency
of the currently available practical combined cycles.

60 HZ STAG CC PRODUCT LINE EQUIPMENT

This cycle can reduce the stack gas temperature to 225
°F (107 °C) and is applied when sulfur-free fuels. such
as natural gas. are burned. The installed cost of the
plant is increased over the HRFH-1 cycle because of the
I
!
1
\

HRSG BOX STEAM TURBINE

addition of the low-pressure evaporator and economizer
STAG
GAS TURBINE BOX SIZE '
NO
LSB l LENGTH
EXH
for increased HRSG surface; the low-pressure admtssion
~~-~ ..!!2.... _E.!_ M EXH
.!!L ~ C:ONFI!:> system for addi~ional steam turbine-generator capacity;
S·205 2 MSS001P 1 11. 48 3 35 • 14 6 1 143 363 AXIAL
S-405 4 MS5001P 2 11 • 40 3 35. 14 li 1 23 504 AXIAL
and the additional piping. wiring, and controls. This
S•206
5·406
5·107
2
4
I
I.IS60018
MS600IP
M57001E
1
2
1
11

~1 l
~~a

11. 48
48
3 35. 14 6
3 35. 14 (!
3 35 • 14 li 1
17.5
23
17 5
432
584
432
AXIAL
AXIAl
AlUAL
alternate cycle is applied when burning clean. high-cost
fuels because the increased efficiency offsets the added
plant cost.
I
S-207
5·407

~
2
4
MS700tE
MS7001E
2
4
11 • 4ij
11 • 40
3 35. 14 r,
3 35. 14 6
1
2
23
23
584
584
AXIhL
SIDE
The EFH cycles are ~•:.rwer in efficiency than the l
1 BOX !>!U • G.t.S SIDE OIMENSIONS
2 LSB - LAST SH-GE BUCKET
HRFH-1 cycle and are alternates for applications witl1
low-cost fuels or other considerations. Applications tor II
•
GTO&&OUA
which it is desirable to have a deaerating feedwater
heater operating above atmospheric pressure or a high
feedwater temperature can economically use these t
Figul'e 12 cycles. An example of a requirement for a high feedwa-

...... *'........
I
•
•
•
• '• ~ •
...
• ' " ~ •
•• •
• fJ
0
1
•• •
'
•
•
t ~ D 'f "0 • • .. ' ' : • _.• ' ., • 11'1) .. .. ' • • .. - • .: •

II,
lJ

TYPICAL CYCLE DIAGRAM STAG 207E COMBINE:D CYCLE

TWO PRESSURE HEAT RECOVERY FEEDWATER EFFECT OF STEAM CYCLE Ot\1 ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE
HEATING (HRFH-2) STEAM CYCLE NATU~t,t,L GAS 'FUEL
f SlACI'I.
LEGEND

;::j==t~~~-----, --
CYCLE POWER HEAT RATE

r
CHANGE RATING CHANGE RATING
.,. - -WAlER
- A J R GAS ,_J--rt~ I : ~~~ (BTU/KWH) (KJ/KWH)

::::;::r>~-
HEAT RECOVERY FEEDWATER
-! i I I
-·-fUEL
HEATING-1 PRESSURE HRSG BASE 216,8 BASE 7620 8040 l
i
""sc; r - J - - 1- - ; :
1 - - r - - .__
- _J - - . _ .. ____ _,
: ~
:
II HtAT RECOVERY FEEDWATER
HEUING-2 PRESSURE HRSG +2.9 223.1 -2.8 7410 7820
\
r- J - - r-------: :
i '--· +--, I EXTRACTION FEEDWATER
HEATING-2 EXTRACTIONS -0.6 215.ti +0.6 7560 8080
FUEL -:j===l l : : I
IHE
~~•w ~UR!lN( IDJU:,.
l EXTRACTION FEEOWATER
HEATING-1 EXTRACTION • -2.4 211.5 +2.5 7810 8240
ou-EAA nHG f'UDWATUt 1
CONDE~S£A: ,UMP • AIR COOLED CONDENSER- 4 lN. HgA(102 MM HgA) ST EXH. PRESS.
COHD£NSAT( ----~ ql08610A AT ISO AMBIENT GTOIIII12B
PUIIP

r Figure 14 Figure 16

[ ter temperature is an application that burns high-sulfur

residual oil (3-5 percent sulfur content) where the EFH-2
STAG COMBINED-CYCLE MAJOR EQUIPMENT

cycle can provide a final feedwater temperature of The major equipment for the STAG combined-cycle
approximately 300 OF (149 oc). The EFH-1 cycle is used generation systems includes the line of packaged gas
to provide positive pressure deaeration in applications turbine power generation units, unfired HRSGs, nonreheat
steam turbine-generators, and controls. This is a line of
involving an air-cooled condenser. Since approximately
15 percent of the steam is extracted to heat the proven. reliable equipment with excellent performance
characteristics for combined-cycle systems. All this
feedwater to 230-250 °F (110-121 °C). the size and cost
equipment is manufactured by General Electric and
of the air-cooled condenser is reduced, thereby improv-
properly matched for each application. Important fea-
ing the power generation economics. Figure 15 illus-
tures of the major equipment that are significant for effi..,
trates the EFH-1 steam cycle with the air-cooled con-
cient, highly reliable combined-cycle systems are
denser.
presented in the following discussion.
Relative performance of STAG 207E systems with
typical HRFH-1, HRFH-2, EFH-1 with air-cooled con-

c denser, and EFH-2 cycles are presented in Fig. 16. The

relative performance is typical for all the standard STAG
systems. Ratings on natural gas fuel are presented for
Gas Turbines
General Electric heavy-duty gas turbines. consisting
of the MS5001P. MS6001B, MS7001E, and MS9001E, are
comparison. employed in the STAG combined-cycle product line.

EXTRACTION FEEDWATER HEATING (EFH-1) I MSSOO 1P GAS TURBINE CROSS SECTION

STEAM CYCLE
AIR COOLED CONDENSER

[ L[G[ND

••• • SI[AW

- - WATtR
-A!ROU
-·-fUH

L GTOIOI lA

c• Figure 1S Figure 17
GT08956

I
 MS600 i 8 GAS TURBINE CROSS SECTION
r
l
r
t'
[ GT003lOOA
[ Figure 18
[ f'his line of gas turbines ranges from 25 to 108 MW ISO
ratings and is illustrated by Fig. 17 (25 MW, 50-60 Hz,
MS5001P), Fig. 18 (35 MW, 50-60 Hz, MS60018), Fig. 19
(75 MW, 60 Hz, MS7001E), and Fig. 20 (108 MW, 50 Hz,
MS9001E). This line of gas turbines has the following
features that uniquely suit them for combined-cycles:
l
• High specific power is the key gas turbine charac-
C
;
teristic that determines the efficiency of a combined-
' cycle system. Specific power is the power output
divided by the airflnw and is usually expressed in
units of kW /[lb/s] (kW /{kgfs]), Combined-cycle effi-
ciency increases as gas turbine specific power is
increased. High specifrc power is achie~;ed by a
combination of high component efficiencies and high
firing temperature.
• The exhaust gas temperature of 1000-1050 oF (538-
566 cc) is uniquely suited to efficient combrned
c
'
'
MS700 1 E GAS TURBINE CROSS SECTION
L are available to enable operation on a wide r·ange of
Gl071lfll
Figure 19
6
MS9001E GAS TURBINE CROSS SECTION
•
Figure 20
cycles because it enables transfer of heat from the
exhaust gas to the steam cycle over a mir.imum tem-
perature difference. This temperature range restrlts in
the lowest decrease in thermodynamic availability.
• Multiple can~type combustors with film and impinge-
ment cooling enable reliable operation at high firing
temperature while burning fuels ranging from natural
gas to residual oil.
• Turbine materials, coatings, and cooling systems
enable high turbine efficiency and reliable operation
at high firing temperature while burning a Wide range
of gaseous and !!qUid fuels.
e ~..owinstalled cost and short rnstallat1on time are
achieved by factory packagrng and containenzed
shipment of small parts.
• Reliable operatron results from evolutionary design
deve~· pment that improves parts and components to
increase efficiency and reliability, a hrgh-quallty
manufacturing program including operatronal factory
testing of the gas turbme and accessory sy~tems,
follow-up service support by experienced installation
and service personnel, and effective spare parts sup-
port.
• Low maintenance 1s achreved by the combination of
features described above m addition to equipment
design for convement access and borescope ports for
inspection of key parts and components wrthout dis-
mantling the equipment
• Fuel flexibility is provided by accessory systems,
combustion systems, and turbme components that
liquid and gaseous fuels. These include 300·
•
400 Btu/scf (11,177-149,027 kJ/Nm:1) gaseous fuels
and liquid fuels includmg naptha, lrght drstillates,
heavy distillates, crude 011, and residual oil.
I
 I
·.·.· • ·,_ . ' .· ..· . ~ <: ' ' v ' •..• - .·· • . ,. .. . \ ·.•· . . '

HRSG MODULAR CONSTRUCTION HRSG INSTALLATION

[ QTOC71B QT00S41A

r~ Figure 21 Figure 22
L

Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs) Steam Turbine

In the General Electric STAG product line, HRSGs are
unfired and feature modular construction with finned
tube heat transfer surface and forced circulation eva-
porators. Figure 21 illustrates the HRSG modular con-
struction. A STAG 107 HRSG installation is shown in
Fig. 22. Each gas turbine exhausts to one HRSG in
r~.l
L;
STAG systems with the MS7001 or MS9001 gas turbines.
For STAG systems with MS5001 and MS6001 gas tur-
bines, the standard gas ducting is configured so that two
gas turbines exhaust to one HRSG. These STAG sys-
tems are also available with one HRSG per gas turbine.
The HRSG is flexible in arrangement and is available
with exhaust gas entry at the side or the end.
The HRSG and its auxiliaries are designed to meet
operating requirements of the STAG combined-cycle
' system. ·Specific design features include:
The steam turbines for the STAG combined-cycle
product line are nonreheat, condensing units ranging
from about 20 to 200 MW capability. STAG combined-
cycle product line steam turbines are provided with last-
stage bucket lengths ranging from 14.3 inches (363 mm)
to 26 inches (660 mm) and with single-flow axial
exhaust and double-flow side exhaust. Figure 23 shows
a single-flow, axial-exhaust steam turbine for application
with a single-shaft or small capacity multishaft STAG
system. Figure 24 show~ a two-flow, side-exhaust S.team
turbine for application with a large multishaft STAG sys-
tem.
These steam turbines are specially designed for
combined-cycle service with features that include the
following:
• Assembled shipment modules and low-profile instal-

l J • Exhaust gas bypass system to provide fast start-up

and shutdown and flexibility of operation for mul-
lation to reduce installation time and cost. (BUilding

I l. ·"
tishaft STAG systems. Exhaust gas bypass systems
are not required with single-shaft STAG units.
• Flexib{e tub.e support system to enable fast start-up
SINGLE-FLOW STEAM TURBINE
WITH AXIAL EXHAUST
and load-following capability.
i

L . • Low gas-side pressure drop to increase gas turbine

· performante.

fI
• Large, factory-tested, shippable modules to provide a E
short installation time and low construction costs.
t.)
• Fuel flexibility provided by the ability to operate reli·
ably and efficiently using exhaust gas from gas tur-

L bines burning fuels ranging from natural gas to heavy

residual oil.
, Maintenance access to HRSG tube return bends and
headers, which minimizes time for inspection and
maintenance. Figure 23

L
I
 TWO FLOW STEAM TURBINE 1 HYDROGEN-COOLED GENERATOR

c WITH SIDE !:~~AUST

: I

[
GTOB613 Gl0B9SB

Figure 24 Figure 26

cos!, for indoor installations, is also reduced with the
low-profile design that results from the axial and side
exhaust configurations.)
• Access for borescopic inspection of buckets and noz-
zles without removal of the turbine upper casing.
• Fast start-up and load-followmg capability provided
by minimum shaft diameter in the vicinity of the first
stage, large fillets bet~A"~en wheels and rotor, long
coupling spans, vertical flexible plate support near
the centerline with keys for maintenance of align-
ment, heat chamber design for turbines with multiple
valves, and full-arc steam admiss1on for smaller tur-
bines with off-chest control valves.
Generators
Generators for the STAG combined-cycle gas tur-
bines and steam turbines are factory assembled and
tested. Open-ventilated, air-cooled generators are stan-
dard, and they are equipped with self-cleaning air filters
for desert or other dusty or dirty environments.
Hydrogen-cooled generators are available for the larger
STAG combined cycles. The hydrogen-cooled genera-
tors can be cooled by plant cooling water or by ambient
air with water-to-air heat exchangers. The ambient air-
cooled generators and accessories are matched to the
gas turbine and steam turbine ambient capability
characteristics. Figuie ?.5 shows a typical open-
ventilated generator, ancl Fig. 26 shows a hydrogen-
cooled unit.
Controls
The STAG combined-cycle controls coordrnate the
operation of equipment in the system to provide plant
operating efficiency, plant or equipment start-up and
shutdown with minimum operator attendance, and equip-
ment protection The control system is electronic, mcor-
poratmg both analog and digital elements.

' OPEN VENTILATED, AIR-CvOLED GENERATOR MULTISHAFT STAG CC CONTROL DIAGRAM

L '
I

~
IGVC:OII!IIC:·!. --STEAl,!
___..WATER
- ll.IR.GAS COND F W
--fUEl PUII;P pUWP GI!>IUli•

.... ·----------~---~~---------~-----------
Figure 25 FISiure 27

. ... ~- . . . . . . ,.
~. _\. ...
~
I

I
',,.- ..
. . . . . ~
. '
.
\
.... .
•'
.

L
The heat recovery combined cycle is a simple system
with a minimum of control loops, as shown by the control
diagram, Fig. 27, for a multishaft STAG system. This sys- TYPICAL STAG 100 CONTROL PANEL
[ tem simp~icity coupled with well-established automated
operation of system components such as the gas
turbine-generator units enables effective automation of
the STAG system, thereby minimizing the number of con-
[ trol r.oom operators. Most STAG systems operate with
one control room operator and one roving operator.
.. A typical multishafl 3TAG control system central con- i:

.,[ trol room panel arrangement is shown in Fig. 26. The

standard panels include the operator interface panels
I
I"

., consisting of the steam cycle control panel (SCCP), a

gas turbine/HRSG panel (GT/HRSG) for each gas
[
CT005388

turbine/HRSG unit. and the back row cabinets, which do

-,
not have any operator interface. The back row cabinets
consist of the steam turbine cabinet (STC), steam turbine
Figure 29
[ generator protective cabinet (GPC), one heat recovery
steam generator cabinet (SGC) per HRSG, and the
mechanical auxiliary cabinet (MAC). The unit control for l
r- the gas turbine and its generator are located in the con- operator coordinates the operation of the multishaft

{~ trol compartment, which is usually installed near the gas

turbine-generator unit.
The multishaft STAG control is configured to enable
r' (1} automated start-up and operation after remote manu-
tJ al starting of plant auxiliaries, (2) remote manual opera-
tion of each major component, or (3) local operation of
the gas turbine-generator units from their local control
compartments. This "layered" control configuration en-
ables maximum availability, since the plant is simple and
can be operated remotely with no additional control
room operators. The equipment protection system is in
the unit controls; so normal protection is provided during
all modes of operation, including remote manual opera-
1 ' tion.
STAG system. This console also provides an interface
with a remote automatic dispatch system for control and
monitoring the system output from a dispatch office re- t,
mote from the station. t
Data acquisition systems (DAS) for monitoring the
operation of the major equipment and plant auxilianes
are available as options. These are microprocessor-
based systems that can also provide remote operation
and monitoring.
The single-shaft STAG control system consists of the
gas turbine control system extended to include the
steam cycle control. Because of the simple steam cycle,
the tandem coupling of the gas and steam turbines to a
singla generator, and the elimination of the HRSG ex-

u The optional plant master control console (PMC) pro-

vides a convenient operating desk from which one
haust gas bypass system, the single-shaft STAG
combined-cycle control is very simple. Starting, opera-
tion, and shutdown of individual units is automatic. How-
ever, limited operator intervention can be exercised if re-
quired by unusual conditions. Figure 29 shows the ar-
rangement of the standard single-shaft STAG controls for
one unit. One control room operator can operate three or
MULTISHAFT STAG CC
CONTROL ROOM ARRANGEMENT four single-shaft STAG coml1ined-cycle units with this
type of unit control system with the aid of one local

SGC •1 SGC •2 I STC I GPC 'MAC I J

OAS
operator. Data acquisition syst,err s and remote operation
and monitoring are available for single~shaft STAG units.

STEAM CYCLE
CONTROL PLANT /"'-. PLANT OPERATION
GT/HR{)
•1
PANEL
L---------1 ~/HRSG
•2
PANEL
Typical STAG plant performance variation with
ambient air temperature is illustrated by the heat rate
I I I and capability curve in Fig. 30. Low heat rate throughout
the ambient air temperature range is typical of these
plants. The low heat rate and continuously increasing
output as ambient temperature decreases are achieved
as a result of the gas turbine characteristics and correct
Figure 28 equipment matching.

I
 • • # - • • • ,· • • • ' .... .... • 1 - • • • • ... ..
f . • . ' '

c
[
COMBINED CYCLE PERFORMANCE VARIATION
WITH AMBIENT AIR TEMPERATURE
H£ATIIATE
(Ff:RCENT
OF RATED!
102 . . - - - - - - - · - - - ,

100
MULTISHAFT STAG CC STARTING TJMES
•
[ 120
!I; PLANT &O
OUTPUT
10

I
!>OWER OUTPUT
(PERCENT
PO ..ER I
OF RATED I
110 40 I

~
100
20

10 llllll!llllll!lll
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1110 100
TIME FROM START • MINUTES

[ GTOS015A
GT0113e

Figure 30 Figure 32

Steam production and steam turbine output vary as
the gas flow and temperature to the heat recovery steam
generator from the gas turbine. Gas turbine exhaust flow
and temperature vary with ambient temperature and
barometric pressure. The steam turbines are sized to
suit specific application requirements. However, in the
standard systems, the steam turbines are sized so that
their rated flow matches the steam production when the
gas turbines are operating at base rating [ISO conditions
of 59 °F (15 °C) and sea level]. These equipment-
matching criteria enable the steam turbine to utilize all
Excellent part-load heat rate is achieved on mul-
tishaft systems or multiple s~ngle-shaft units by sequen-
tially loading gas turbines to meet system requirements
(Fig. 31). This curve also shows that the plant can i-
operate efficiently when following system road with all
gas turbines operating. The heat rate increases only 5
percent at 75 percent of rating.
The modulated inlet guide vanes (IGV) on the gas
turbine compressor contribute significantly to the excel-
lent part-load performance. The inlet guide vanes are I
!
'

the steam produced by the HRSGs, with the gas turbines modulated to control airflow in the powsr range between
r' at base capability over the ambient air temperature the "hash" mark and the point marked "B." Varying the
u range expected for most applications. The expected airflow maintains nearly constant gas turbine firing tem-
flow margin in the steam turbine is used in the ambient perature so that the thermodynamic quality of the cycle
f temperature range below 59 OF (15 oc). Below approxi~ remains essentially' constant. The stack loss and con-
l
I 1 mately 10 °F (-12 °C), the STAG system maximum capa- denser losses vary almost proportionally to output; so the
L..i
bility is limited to maintain steam flow within steam tur- heat rate remains almost constant. At loads below the
bine capability. "hash" mark, the gas turbine operates with reduced air-
\\
'j
(

r
STAG 209E CC PART LOAD PERFORMANCE STAG 406 COMBINED CYCLE PLAN l
u
f
160
NOTES
0 !
140
B GT BASE LOAD OPERATION
IGV GT IGY MODULATION
STEAM
SYSTEM
I~
AUXILIARiti
t;EAT ~ATE­ 1
~ OF BASE
RATING
__..,~SHARING
' NO QF GAS TURBINES l
LOAD EQUALLY -
7811
1256 FTI
l!
120 1 IIUILDINC. '
l
\ l

L
"'~F=+~-+--t--

100 \.: 1
TRANSFORMERS D CAS lUI!91NE
0 D
l
Ii
l
0 20 .-o eo ao 100 100M f2S6 FTJ i
pLANT OUTPUT- X OF BASE RAiiNG
GT~II711
GT08616A•1
II

•
l
f
Figure 31 Figure 33 I
10
I l
l
I
I
I
..... ~·

I
 I
• •• J • • ~ • • •• • • • >· ~ .. ~ . . .. . .. ' . . . . . . . '" .

I,J-
; tj
I

STAG 207 COMBINED-CYCLE PLAN STAG 107 COMBINED-CYCLE PLAN ARRANGE~~ENT l'
FOR INDOOR INSTALLATION

\ f

r
L~
INLET
t GAS lU~BINE GENERATOR ~ M.lllrli STEP•UP H1AII!SFORWER 10 CONDENSATE PUb1PS
HOUSE
r, 7 GAS TlJABINE INLET COMPT .,. Gl COOliNCt WOtUlES 1 t LUBE OIL EOUiPWENT STEAM TURBINE GAS TURBINE

GTOO~_:J
-3 GAS TURBINE EIHAUST BYPASS (! StEA .. lURBI~[ tiEN£RATOA 12 SOllER FEEDWATER PUMPS
4 HRSG li'o." ~~DENSER
j S E!ICtlA.ltON CO .. PAIHW£frril
13 CRANE R.-IL
14 CGNTROL t=I:OOU
GT088051A

LJ

Figure 34 Figure 36

flow for minimum stack losses, but the firing temperature climatic conditions, system configuration. and owner/op-
is reduced as load is reduced.
[~
erator preferences. The equipment is suitable for out-
Fast starting and loading is a characteristic of STAG
door installations, semi-outdoor installations. or for fully r
combined-cycle generation systems. This characteristic housed installations. Standard arrangements have been
enables them to operate as midrange, daily start as well designed for each STAG system.
as baseload systems. Typically STAG systems can Plans for standard aHangements are shown in Fig. 33
achieve full load within one hour during a hot start and (semi-outdoor STAG 406 combined cycle), Fig. 34 On-
require approximately three hours for a cold start. Mul- door STAG 207 combined cycle), Fig. 35 {semi-outdoor
tishaft STAG systems allow the gas turbines to start STAG 209 combined cycle), and Fig. 36 (STAG 107
independently of the steam cycle and provide about '65 combined cycle). The standard gas turbine enclosures
percent of plant capability within 15-25 minutes depend- are weatherproof. and weatherproof lagging is available
ing on the size of the gas turbine. This characteristic is for the steam turbines. Figure 37 shows a STAG 407 in-
f '
illustrated in Fig. 32 for a typical hot. cold, and warm stallation with outdoor gas turbines and HRSGs with an
start. indoor steam turbine in the background. Figure 38
presents a three-unit STAG 107 combined-cycle outdoor
r installation, and Fig. 39 shows a three-unit indoor
i PLANT ARRANGEMENTS
STAG 107 combined-cycle installation with outdoor
~ The STAG combined-cycle equipment is adaptable to HRSGs. In this figure, the HRSG drums, instrumentation,
varied installation requirements demanded by varying and circulating pumps are enclosed.

STAG 209 COMBINED-CYCLE

i PLAN FOR INDOOR INSTALLATION STAG, 407 GC INSTALLATiON
i
; L. .,J

. . . ---0
="-------@
1 IULnCO .. Pl $ .. AI~ SlEP.tJP TAANSFORLt;A 10 CONDENSFA
:11 GAS TURBINE GEHEAATOR I C<:>NTROL AND AUXILIAhiES BUILDING II BOILER FEED PU .. PS
~ UHAUST 81 P~S$ $TACK 7 HEAT RECOVERY STEA .. GENERATOR IGR()UNO LEVEl>
• GAS TURBIN{ GENE AM OR I CONDENSATE PU,.P!> ll CRANE RAIL
EXCITAliON CO.. P1 GT03682B
I 51£A .. TURBINE GENEAAlOR q lifi,~f~<}~~Djl~ GTOim

Figure 35 Figure 37

11

- I
 I
. . .. ' . . ~ ...
' . ~ . '\ , ·. ~ . '.. ' . \ ,"' .. . . . \ ...

D
c ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE
,.,
~ t

c TYPICAL PROJECT SCHEDULE

ENGR., MFGR.,
AND SHIP
GAS TURBINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
GENERATORS
INSTALL
GT
CHECKOUT

GT COM'L
OPER.

c
HEAT 1-E.NG·R·.,
RECOVERY ~
...F.G.R....
A.NDiaS·H·IP....- . . 1
1
STEAM
GENERA TOR INSTALL I
·r J
1 STAGCC
STEAM
TURBINE t-______..___.,
ENGR., MFGR , AND SHIP CHECKOUT

GENERATOR INSTALL I
r STATION ENGR., MFGR .. AND SHIP
I

!
1
L~
CONTROL
PANEL -'•
INSTALL I~ I STAG cc

I I I I II READY I'OR
co~~~ISSIOHING

r-- 0 6 12 18
TIME FROM COMMITMENT (MONTHS)
24
aroaa.oo
f .
L~,...i Gl08935

Figure 38 Figur~ 41

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STAG combined-cycle systems can meet the environ-
mental requirements of all countries. Standard, optional,
and modular systems can usually be furnished to meet
the varying acoustic, emission, and stack plume visibility
requirements of specific applications with minimum cost.
The air atomized liquid fuel systems enable compliance
with rigid plume visibility standards when burning distil-
late, crude, or residual oils. Steam and water injection
systems are avairable to satisfy stringent NOx emission
requirements. Most carbon monoxide and unburned
hydrocarbon emission requirements can be satisfied with
the standard 1ow-em1ssion gas turbine combustion sys-
•
tems.
GT08617
General Electric can provide calculations of ground-
level concentration of pollutants when required. Com-
Figure 39 puter programs are available using standard U.S.

MIT WIND TUNNEL STUDIES

SIX MS7001 B GAS TURBINES

•
GT08618 GT08619D

Figure 40 Flgut•e 42

12

,i
I

TWO STAG 4078 COMBINED·CYCLE
STEAM SYSTEM INSTALLATIOF'J
. __...
I•
GT08620B
Figure 43
r· Environmental Protection Agency ground-level concen-
I
L._, tration calculation methods. Ground-level concentrations
near the plant can also be in'fluenced by exhaust gas
entrainment by high-velocity winds. The sensitivity of
r
' STAG plant arrangements to such exhaust gas re-
entrainment has been studiEid in a wind tunnel, and
these data are available for customer evaluations. Fig-
i Power mul~ishaft STAG combined-cycle installation illus-
r" ure 40 shows one of the wind. tunnel tests in progress.
i trate a two-phase installation. Figure 42 shows the six
I
u The low thermal discharge from STAG combined-
cycle plants is an outstanding chaiacteristic. The ther-
,. mal discharge from a STAG combined-cycle plant is
approximately 2000 Btu/kWh (2110 kJ/kWh) for a stan-
dard system with the HRFH-1 steam cycle.
INSTALLATION
The short installation time and low installation cost
for STAG combined-cycle systems are key features con-
tributing to economical power generation. These are
achieved because of factory packaging of all the major
components and containerized shipment of small parts.
In addition to low direct construction costs, the sh.nrt
installation time reduces interest payments during con-
struction. The standard factory modules and standard-
ized designs also reduce: plant engineering time and
cost.
The time from order to commercial operation for pre-
en£jineered, standardized STAG designs is 24 montr,s.
The multishaft STAG systems can be installed in two
phases to reduce the: time between order and initial
power production. The gas turbines contribute 65 per-
•
TWO STAG Q7B COMBINED· I.
CYCLE SYSTEMS
f
GTOS621B
Figure 44
cent of the plant capacity. Typically, the gas turbine can
be installed in 12-18 months to provide generation while
the steam system is being installed in approximately 24
months. Figure 41 is a typical two-phase multishaft
STAG combined-cycle installation schedule.
Sequential photographs of the Houston Lighting and
simple-cycle gas turbines operating in peaking genera-
tion service. Figure 43 shows the installation of the
steam cycle equipment and two additional gas turbine-
generator units while the first six gas turbines are in
operation. The two STAG 4078 combined-cycle systems
are shown in operation i11 Fig. 44.
UTILITY LOAD GROWTH
Power generation economics can be enhanced by the
installation of generation capacity in small increments as
utility load grows. STAG combined-cycle plants flt this
economical pattern because efficient. low-cost plants are
available in small blocks of generating capacity.
CONCLUSION
The STAG combined-cycle product line plants, rang-
ing from 70 MW to 450 MW, are efficient. low-cost
power generation plants that ger..arate power economi-
cally and satisfy the environmental requirements of all
countries. The attractive power generation economics
demand consideration of this equipment for all oil- and
gas-fired power generation applications.
13
I
 r ~
l,
CONVERSION FACTORS i
('

The following is a list of conversion factors most

commonly used for gas turbine performance. -

-
_To Convert To Multiply By To Convert To Multiply By

acres hectartes 4.047 X 10- 1 hp (U.S.) hp (metric) 1.014

atm kg/cm 2 1.0333 in. em 2.540
atm lb/in.2 1.47 X 101 in. mm 2.54 X 101
bars atm 9.869 X 10- 1 in.2 mm 2 6.452 X 102
bars lb/in. 2 1.45 X 101 in. cf mercury kg/cm 2 3.453 X 10- 2
Btu J (joules) 1.055 X 103
in. of water
Btu kcal 2.52 X 10- 1 (at 4 °C) kg/cm 2 2.54 X 10- 3
Btu/h kcal/h 2.520 x 10- 1
kJ/h in. of water
Btu/h 1.0548 (at 4 °C) lb/in. 2 3.613 X 10- 2
Btu/h W (watts) 2.931 X 10- 1
Btu/hp-h kcal/kWh 3.379 X 10- 1 J Btu 9.465 X 10- 4
r
Btu/hp-h kJ/kWh 1.4148 kg lb 2.2046
' Btu/k\'Vh kcal/kWh 2.5'198 X 10- 1 kg/cm 2 lb/in.2 1.422 X 101
Btu/kWh kJ/kWh 1.0548 kg-m ft-lb 7.233
Btu/lb kcal/kg 5.555 X 10- 1 kg/m 3 lb/ft 3 6.243 X 10- 2
Btu/lb kJ/kg 2.3256 km miles (st~.tute) 6.214 X 10- 1
oc OF (°C X 9/5) + 32 kW hp 1.341
oc K oc + 273.18 I l.&.3
;l 3.531 X 10- 2
cm 3 ft 3 3.531 X 10- S lb kg 4.536 X 10- 1
cm 3 in.3 6.1o2 x 10- 2 lb/in.2 kg/cm 2 7.03 X 10- 2
OF oc (°F- 32) X 5/9 lb/in.2 Pa 6.8948 X 103
ft m 3.048 x 1o-1 lb-ft 2 kg-m 2 4.214 X 10- 1
ft 2 m2 9.29 X 10- 2 1/min ft 3/s 5.886 X 10- 4
ft 3 I (liters) 2.832 X 101 1/min galls 4.403 X 10- 3
ft 3 m3 2.832 X 10- 2 m ft 3.281
ft-lb Btu 1.286 X 10- 3 m2 ft 2 1.076 X 101
I , ft-lb kg-m 1.383 x 10- 1 m3 ft 3 3.531 X 101
ft/mln km/h 1.8288 X 10- 2 mile (statute) km 1.6093
ft 3/min 1/s 4.720 x 10- 1 tons (metric) "=g 1.0 X 103
• I
; ft 3/mln m3/min 2.83.2 X 10- 2 tons (metric) lb 2.205 X 103
. gal m3 3.785 X 10- 3 w Btu/h 3.4129
gal/min 1/s 6.308 x 10- 2 w Btu/min 5.688 X 10- 2
hectares acres 2.471 V'.f ft-lb/s 7.378 X 10- 1
hp (U.S.) kW 7.457 X 10- 1 VI hp 1.341 x 10- 3
~ A

!-t~··\:.1 . . .. . ~ ,' . . • • . ••
'./,,; " . . • • • . "' . !
~{;- Oj .. • •• ' ' 0' ' '
 ..
,,

GER-3400
GER-3401
1983 GAS TURBINE REFERENCE LIBRARY

STAG Combined-Cycle Operating Experience

STAG Combined-Cycle Product Line
GER-3420 Replacement of Existing Gas Pipeline Compressor
Station Equipment
• l

!
t
t
~
t'
l

t
j:

- GER-3421 Advanced Materials and Coatings r

GER-34.D2 STAG Combined-Cycle Plant Engineering and t
Construction Management GER-3422 GE MS7001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine I'
GER-3403 Steam Turbines for STAG Combined-Cycle Power
Systems
GER-3423
GER-3424
Electric Utility Gas Turbine Applications
Aircraft-Derivative Maintenance Practices
lI
GER-3404 Heat Recovery Steam Generators for STAG
GER-3425 GE LMSOOO Aircraft-Derivative Gas Turbine I
Combined-Cycle Plants
System !
GER-3405 Controls for STAG Combined-Cycle Plants
I
1'
GER-3426 GE Mark IV SPEEDTRON1C Control System
pER-3406 STAG Combined-Cycle Power Systems Reliability
!
GER-3407 STAG Combined-Cycle Power Systems Operation
GER-3427 GE Data-Tronic Information and Control System !r
GER-3428 Fuels Flexibility in Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines !
and Maintenance 1'
1
GER-3429 Meeting the Quality Commitment with Experience t
GER-3408 STAG Combined-Cycle Fuel FlexibilitY and ~
and Technology ',
Economic Evaluation
GER-3430 Industrial Gas Turbine Cogeneration Application r
GER-3409 STAG Combined-Cycle Plants in Power Generation ~
Planning Analysis Considerations i
Cornb~ned-Cycle Repowering Mechanics and GER-3431 GE LM2500 Aircraft-Derivative Gas Turbine System
GER-3410
Economics GER-3432 GE MS9000 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine
GER-3411 STAG Combined-Cycle System Economics GER-3433 Applic~tion of Gas Turbines in the Process Industry
GER-3412 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine Maintenance Practices
GER-3434 Recent Developments and Design Philosophy for
GER-3413 GE MS6001 Heavy-Duty Gas Turbine Heavy-Duty Gas Turbines
GER-3414 Gas Turbir~2 Parts and Performance Update GER-3435 GE Gas Turbine Multiple-Combustion System
GER-3415 Compressor Selection to Match Gas Turbine Rated Characteristics, Emission Control Techniques and
Speed Hardware Technology
*
GER-3416 GE Compressors for Pipeline and GER-3436 Project Management Concepts
Process Applications
GER-3437 Performance Characteristics
GER-3417 Gas Turbine and Compressor Testing for Mechanical
Drive Systems GER-3438 Liquid Fuel Treatment Systems
GER-34IG Generator Selection Criteria for Gas Turbine Power GER-3439 Coal-Fired STAG Combined-Cycle Applications
Plants
GER-3451 Legislation and Regulations Affecting
GER-34l9 Gas Turbine Inlet Air Treatment Cogeneration

CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRlC COMPANY

1900 Eglinton Avenue, East International Trading Operations
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada 570 Lexington Avenue
New York City, New York 10022 USA

GAS TURBINE DIVISION

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY .. '

SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12345 USA

! l

•
I,
,,

8/83 (3M)
GENERAL (I ELECTRIC
'1