Annex XII

The inner side of the cooling tower shell including the upper ring beam must be completely
coated against corrosion. During the inlet of clean flue gases into the cooling tower,
condensate can flow down the cooling tower shell, which is, compared to concrete, heavily
aggressive due to its low pH value.
Concrete parts of the internal structure, e.g. the top framing of the fill supporting structure of
channel segments and riser heads respectively, must also be coated similar to the inner side of
the shell.
Steel parts, e.g. slides or handrails that might get into contact with acid condensate from the
plumes must be made out of special stainless steel.
The clean gas channel conducts the clean gases from the FGD21 building to the middle of the
cooling tower. It can be inserted into the cooling tower at the height of the FGD outlet (high
elevation) or right above the internal tower fill (low elevation). The maximum channel diameter
is about 8 m.
The clean gas channel should be made out of glass fibre reinforced vinylester or equivalent. To
this end, especially chemical-resistant moulding materials on the basis of penacryl resins and, as
textile processing, especially acid-resistant fibres out of ECR glass are to be used.
Due to the condensate formation inside the channel, it should have a slight inclination against
the cooling tower. For the outlet of the condensate, an outlet facility at the clean gas channel
inside the cooling tower is to be provided, leading into the cooling tower basin.

XII.6 Cost comparison between the various types of cooling

towers
The cost elements of cooling systems are mainly of three kinds:
investment costs,
costs related to energy consumption (i.e. efficiency),
and maintenance costs.
For power plants, operating costs related to energy have to take into account the financial gain
that is linked to the difference in efficiency between different options. Generally for power
plants, the comparison of different options is executed through a socio-economic method based
on an actualised balance with an actualisation ratio that varies from country to country (e.g.
8% for France, 5% for Germany and Italy, 10% for Portugal). This method is described in
reference L. Caudron, "Les rfrigrants atmosphriques industriels", Collection de la Direction
des tudes et Rechrches dlectricit de France, 1991.
The actualised balance is composed of:
investment added with indirect charges to technical solutions considered I;
algebraic actualised expenses (maintenance of equipment) and receipts in operation
(production during the estimated life tf );
Pi is the balance of expenses and receipts of the year i , supposed in the middle of the
year.
The balance is represented by the following enumeration with as the actualisation ratio:
I + i =1i= tf Pi /((1 + )I-)
With the expenses counted positively, the criterion of choice between different solutions is the
lowest actualised balance.
21

Flue gas desulphurisation.

292

Industrial Cooling Systems

Annex XII

In the case of mechanical draught cooling towers, one may suppose that the maintenance costs
are very similar because they are mainly linked to the maintenance of the fans. By taking into
account the first two criteria and by selecting the least expensive solution as the reference, Table
XII.3 shows that the wet system is much more economical than the dry system, natural draught
more than mechanical draught. From an economic point of view dry systems would be less
recommendable as they are more expensive and have a higher influence on the cost of kWh. So
dry systems may be recommended only in the case of lack of water.
Table XII.3: Comparison of different types of recirculating cooling systems with a lifetime of 25
years and an actualisation ratio of 8% (study on EDF units of 1300 MWe)
[L. Caudron, "Les rfrigrants atmosphriques industriels", editions Eyrolles]

Type of refrigeration
system
Approach K (dry air
11C/wet air
9C)
Nominal condensation
pressure
(mbar)
Thermal power (MWth)
Electrical power
Delivered
(MWe)
Fan power MW
Pump power MW
Cost of refrigerant
Cost of cold end
Difference of cost of
kWh/cost of kWh (%)

Natural
draught

Induced
draught

Wet/dry
cooling
tower
Induced
draught

12.5

12.5

13.5

16

17

63

63

66

82

80

1285

1275

1275

1260

1240

0
13
1
1

10
13
1.25
1.1

12
8
2.3
1.6

0
14
5.7
3.6

26
13
4.8
3.1

1.0

2.4

8.4

8.9

Wet cooling tower

Dry cooling tower

Natural
draught

Induced
draught

2458

Table XII.4: Comparison of wet cooling towers and aircooled condenser with a life-time of 20 years
and an actualisation ratio of 8% for a combined cycle unit 290 MWth
Type of refrigeration
system
Approach K (dry air
11C/wet air 9C)
Nominal condensation
pressure
(mbar)
Thermal power (MWth)
Difference of electrical
power delivered (MWe)
Fan and pump power
(MW)
Global difference on
electrical power in
(MEuro)
Difference in cost on
water consumption
(MEuro)
Difference in cost of
cooling system in
(MEuro)
Cost of cooling system
Global balance of costs
(MEuro)
Industrial Cooling Systems

Wet cooling tower

Air-cooled
condenser

Once-through

Natural
draught

Induced
draught

29

34

44

44

74

290

290

290

290

+ 0.6

- 1.8

1.9

1.95

5.8

-4.7

-2.9

12.6

-8.9

-8.9

-3.0

1.9

8.9

0.82

1.11

1.54

-16.5

-1.0

12.6
293

Annex XII

The same comparison can be done for combined cycle plants. Table XII.4 shows that dry
systems are more expensive again than wet systems, but the difference is smaller than in case of
conventional power plants. The difference between mechanical and natural draught is small and
is more or less comparable. Wet systems are preferred to dry systems. Maintenance costs,
eventual taxes for make-up or blowdown flows of water and costs of chemical products
necessary to the treatment of water are not taken into account in this table, which may
underestimate the cost of wet systems or overestimate the cost for dry cooling. Thus, dry
systems may be recommended depending on the price of water and water treatment for wet
systems or taking into account the lifetime of the plant, where a shorter lifetime reduces the
differences between dry and wet systems.
An important factor in cost comparisons is the efficiency or rather the loss of efficiency due to
cooling with less efficient cooling systems. This loss is measured in the dimensionless energytemperature factor kWth/MWth per degree temperature difference of the cooling water (in K). In
the following theoretical example this factor is derived [Paping, pers. comm.].
From the definition that 100 bar steam of 530 C is equal to 3451 kJ/kg it follows (using Mollier
diagram) that:
50 [mbar]
32.7 [C]
2110 [kJ/kg]
60 [mbar]
35.6 [C]
2130 [kJ/kg]
2150 [kJ/kg]
70 [mbar]
38.8 [C]
Above mentioned vacuum pressures and their related condensation temperatures are also related
to an average cooling water temperature in Europe of 15 C together with a increase of 10 C of
the cooling water in the condenser itself.
Including the heat transfer coefficient of the condenser, the condensate will leave it with a total
temperature of 30 C and an inseparable vacuum pressure of about 43 mbar (see Table XII.3
and Table XII.4). Thus, to calculate the energy-temperature factor for increasing cooling
influent temperatures the calculation for is started with 50 mbar.
The efficiency is calculated following the Carnot cycle resulting in an efficiency, which is in
line with the commonly used 40% for conventional power plants:
at 50 mbar = (3451 - 2110) / (3451 - 4.18 * 32.7) x 100= 40.4609%
at 60 mbar = (3451 - 2130) / (3451 - 4.18 * 35.6) x 100= 40.0037%
at 70 mbar = (3451 - 2150) / (3451 - 4.18 * 38.8) x 100= 39.5583%
The minimum efficiency loss expressed per degree temperature difference under ideal
(thermodynamic) circumstances:
efficiency difference between 50 mbar and 60 mbar = 4.572%o per 2.9 K difference
efficiency difference between 60 mbar and 70 mbar = 4.454%o per 3.2 K difference
efficiency difference between 50 mbar and 70 mbar = 9.026%o per 6.1 K difference
This efficiency loss can be further expressed with respect to the total efficiency and per K:
4.572%o / (2.9 K * 0.4) = 3.9 kWth/MWth per K difference
4.45%o / (3.2 K * 0.4) = 3.5 kWth/MWth per K difference
9.026 %o / (6.1 K * 0.4) = 3.7 kWth/MWth per K difference
From this simplified calculation it appears that for an efficiency of about 40% the loss or gain
per degree of temperature difference of the cooling water can be estimated using the factor of
3.5 kWth/MWth per K.

294

Industrial Cooling Systems