|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 20, 2012 15:17:06 GMT
Occupational Health And Safety. Generating plants ie power stations can be taken off-line and run down to make it safe for maintenance and repairs to be carried out. I am told bringing the the affected generating plant back on line and synchronised takes about 1/2 an hour. Now we are talking steam plant not generating plant so I would be interested to hear from an expert from this field.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2012 15:33:32 GMT
well, that IS about the time it took them for a hot restart. don't know how long it would take for a total shutdown and restart on these, but considering there were crews working pretty much around the clock, not starting them up would be costing the owners much more than paying for additional safety pecautions was.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 20, 2012 15:44:45 GMT
well, that IS about the time it took them for a hot restart. don't know how long it would take for a total shutdown and restart on these, but considering there were crews working pretty much around the clock, not starting them up would be costing the owners much more than paying for additional safety pecautions was. OH&S does not take into account the cost to a company for protecting individuals from life or injury risk situations. There is no reason for a worker to be placed in a situation of personal risk or danger in the area we are talking about that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2012 15:56:33 GMT
which was why the kevlar knit sleeves, hard hats, leather gloves, safety glasses, earplugs, fall arrest systems with double straps, and water containers placed about every hundred feet and refilled continuously by a dedicated crew. we added the muffs, ourselves, because the roar of the turbines was annoying.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2012 15:58:27 GMT
maybe your OHAS is even more neurotic than our OSHA, which I would find impressive.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 20, 2012 16:13:18 GMT
maybe your OHAS is even more neurotic than our OSHA, which I would find impressive. live work is banned.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2012 16:20:10 GMT
here, live work requires proper protective equipment, and crews with sufficient experience to undertake the project. I wasn't allowed to work electrical systems "hot" for my first year in the trade.
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 20, 2012 16:30:22 GMT
here, live work requires proper protective equipment, and crews with sufficient experience to undertake the project. I wasn't allowed to work electrical systems "hot" for my first year in the trade. Regulators live in a fantasy world, to fault find most times you have to work with the "juice" turned on, but don't get caught. Even so I would not send someone into the situation that you and SD describe the risks of a fatality are to great. But I was always overcautious.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 20, 2012 16:35:25 GMT
here, live work requires proper protective equipment, and crews with sufficient experience to undertake the project. I wasn't allowed to work electrical systems "hot" for my first year in the trade. Regulators live in a fantasy world, to fault find most times you have to work with the "juice" turned on, but don't get caught. Even so I would not send someone into the situation that you and SD describe the risks of a fatality are to great. But I was always overcautious. that IS way overcautious. the only lost time injury was the guy who was sloppy with his sleeves, and he only lost a week (and not sure all of that was due to the injury) the only other incident was when a 151' manlift had a malfunction, and the only damage was to the administration building and the operator's shorts. (the reltal yard mechanic declared it as operator error - apparently the correct course of action when a manlift main boom starts dropping is NOT to step off the deadman switch and hit the emergency stop button) the machine was sidelined at least until my phase of the job was done and my crew had been laid off (metric = made redundant)
|
|
|
Post by privatepaddy on Dec 20, 2012 16:47:05 GMT
We all work under the local regulations. I met a UK electrician a while back that was required to go back to college and work under supervision for 12 months before he could get a licence. He was about my age if I recall.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Dec 22, 2012 5:32:32 GMT
Was that boiler indoors or out? Have done roughly the same sort of thing above 1050 Degree F boilers INDOORS. You have no idea how much heat can be retained around a boiler by walls and a roof.
I once also heard a strange sound on top of the boiler and traced it to a leaking radiographic inspection plug on the main steam line (~2600 PSI, 1050 Degrees F steam was blowing out there, just a LITTLE bit dangerous) before I contacted the operator and had him start shutting the boiler down.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 22, 2012 7:20:12 GMT
Was that boiler indoors or out? Have done roughly the same sort of thing above 1050 Degree F boilers INDOORS. You have no idea how much heat can be retained around a boiler by walls and a roof. I once also heard a strange sound on top of the boiler and traced it to a leaking radiographic inspection plug on the main steam line (~2600 PSI, 1050 Degrees F steam was blowing out there, just a LITTLE bit dangerous) before I contacted the operator and had him start shutting the boiler down. you don't think there'd be enough room to drive a 151 foot manlift inside a building, do you?
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Dec 22, 2012 13:56:49 GMT
I couldn't be sure. In our plant we had several equipment lifting bays that extended the full height of the building (roughly 140 feet to the top floor, and a ceiling about 40 feet above that) which could (and did) handle a manlift in a pinch. In our case, though, we had stairs and walkways that would get you close enough to the top of the boiler that you could use a 12 foot ladder (and, in one case, a plank) to get on top. (Be sure to wear shoes that had soles that would not melt, though. We had that happen a lot.)
The newest of our boilers (a Circulating Fluidized Bed boiler) was installed with inappropriate roofing materials, and on one particularly hot, sunny, day while the boiler running full-out, about three years after te boiler was placed in service, the 'tar-paper' roof caught fire from the heat.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Dec 22, 2012 14:11:39 GMT
Occupational I am told bringing the the affected generating plant back on line and synchronised takes about 1/2 an hour. Now we are talking steam plant not generating plant so I would be interested to hear from an expert from this field. In our plant, (a conventional coal-fired Boiler-Turbine-generator unit )(EDIT: Actually four such units.) the time to start up could vary a lot based upon the initial condition of the equipment. If the boiler had shut down less than about 12 hours before the restart, we would usually have to fire the boiler for about a half hour to get to rolling steam pressure (in our case 600 PSI, 600 Deg. F) and if the turbine was still 'hot' (all HP and IP turbine rotor metal above its 250 degree F. nil ductility transition temperature (NDTT) ) it would take about 15 minutes to get the turbine up to speed and synchronized. If everything was totally cold, firing the boiler to rolling conditions would take two to three hours (we had to be sure that the steam drums, which were about 6 inches thick) heated up thoroughly enough that they wouldn't crack from thermal stresses) and it would then take another six to eight hours to roll the turbine up to speed to synchronize it. Again, it was an issue with thoroughly heating up the components in order to avoid excessive thermal stresses and shortening of equipment life. With the Circulating Fluidized Bed unit, heating up the boiler from zero pressure to 'turbine rolling conditions' ALWAYS took at least 12 hours from zero pressure, no matter how hot the boiler's metal components were. The operating characteristics of that type of boiler is extremely sluggish, and to make any kind of a firing change with them was like watching a snail race.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 23, 2012 7:16:40 GMT
(quote)Occupational Health And Safety. Generating plants ie power stations can be taken off-line and run down to make it safe for maintenance and repairs to be carried out. I am told bringing the the affected generating plant back on line and synchronised takes about 1/2 an hour. Now we are talking steam plant not generating plant so I would be interested to hear from an expert from this field.
In My case, it was a Hospital plant, and taking it off-line would have severely compromised the hospitals ability to be a Hospital.
Plus, as we were fitting control systems, the whole system needed to be live in order for us to prove everything was working and commission the thing. We were not altering any of the actual workings, just the controls.
As it happens, from my main office at that time, we ran the boiler package as they had always been run for a moth to prove it was all working properly, then I started on the control schematics, within the next six months, I shaved about 10% of their fuel bills.... without compromising any hospital working practises....
The control schematics also allowed a shutdown of one boiler at a time to take it off line in order for proper maintenance, something that had been unavailable previously under the old control system which fired the boilers on a 1-2-3-4-5-6 dependant on demands.
To equalise out wear, that got changes under the new control to 2-3-4-5-6-1 on the second week, 3-4-5-6-1-2 on the third etc, and other improvements, such as the ability to take completely off-line whole sections of the building if unoccupied, but leaving a basic "Frost protect" in place automatically say in the instance of a whole ward being shut down.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Dec 23, 2012 17:43:01 GMT
In My case, it was a Hospital plant, and taking it off-line would have severely compromised the hospitals ability to be a Hospital. Plus, as we were fitting control systems, the whole system needed to be live in order for us to prove everything was working and commission the thing. We were not altering any of the actual workings, just the controls. As it happens, from my main office at that time, we ran the boiler package as they had always been run for a moth to prove it was all working properly, then I started on the control schematics, within the next six months, I shaved about 10% of their fuel bills.... without compromising any hospital working practises.... The control schematics also allowed a shutdown of one boiler at a time to take it off line in order for proper maintenance, something that had been unavailable previously under the old control system which fired the boilers on a 1-2-3-4-5-6 dependant on demands. To equalise out wear, that got changes under the new control to 2-3-4-5-6-1 on the second week, 3-4-5-6-1-2 on the third etc, and other improvements, such as the ability to take completely off-line whole sections of the building if unoccupied, but leaving a basic "Frost protect" in place automatically say in the instance of a whole ward being shut down. I did a lot of specialization in our control systems as well, and am VERY familiar with tuning up controls schemes with the equipment in service. We also had the ability to download new control schemes and interlock configurations to the digital controls systems we had, and I had done this literally dozens of times on the fly to fix stuff in the configuration that the control/interlock system designers either missed or seriously screwed up. One of my better efforts ended up in modifying the overfire air system on one of our boilers (an older design that was incapable of being rebuilt with low-NOX burners) to result in reducing its output of NOX by about 40%. Not needing to buy emissions allowances for the boiler's previous NOX emission levels reduced the hourly cost of operating that boiler by about 15%.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 24, 2012 0:55:45 GMT
In My case, it was a Hospital plant, and taking it off-line would have severely compromised the hospitals ability to be a Hospital. Plus, as we were fitting control systems, the whole system needed to be live in order for us to prove everything was working and commission the thing. We were not altering any of the actual workings, just the controls. As it happens, from my main office at that time, we ran the boiler package as they had always been run for a moth to prove it was all working properly, then I started on the control schematics, within the next six months, I shaved about 10% of their fuel bills.... without compromising any hospital working practises.... The control schematics also allowed a shutdown of one boiler at a time to take it off line in order for proper maintenance, something that had been unavailable previously under the old control system which fired the boilers on a 1-2-3-4-5-6 dependant on demands. To equalise out wear, that got changes under the new control to 2-3-4-5-6-1 on the second week, 3-4-5-6-1-2 on the third etc, and other improvements, such as the ability to take completely off-line whole sections of the building if unoccupied, but leaving a basic "Frost protect" in place automatically say in the instance of a whole ward being shut down. I did a lot of specialization in our control systems as well, and am VERY familiar with tuning up controls schemes with the equipment in service. We also had the ability to download new control schemes and interlock configurations to the digital controls systems we had, and I had done this literally dozens of times on the fly to fix stuff in the configuration that the control/interlock system designers either missed or seriously screwed up. One of my better efforts ended up in modifying the overfire air system on one of our boilers (an older design that was incapable of being rebuilt with low-NOX burners) to result in reducing its output of NOX by about 40%. Not needing to buy emissions allowances for the boiler's previous NOX emission levels reduced the hourly cost of operating that boiler by about 15%. in case you missed the original link, this is a 606 MW power plant that delivers superheated steam to a nearby mill as a secondary product.
|
|
ronbo6
Demi-Minion
Survivor: End of the World. 12/21/2012
Posts: 91
|
Post by ronbo6 on Dec 24, 2012 5:26:23 GMT
I did a lot of specialization in our control systems as well, and am VERY familiar with tuning up controls schemes with the equipment in service. We also had the ability to download new control schemes and interlock configurations to the digital controls systems we had, and I had done this literally dozens of times on the fly to fix stuff in the configuration that the control/interlock system designers either missed or seriously screwed up. One of my better efforts ended up in modifying the overfire air system on one of our boilers (an older design that was incapable of being rebuilt with low-NOX burners) to result in reducing its output of NOX by about 40%. Not needing to buy emissions allowances for the boiler's previous NOX emission levels reduced the hourly cost of operating that boiler by about 15%. in case you missed the original link, this is a 606 MW power plant that delivers superheated steam to a nearby mill as a secondary product. This is getting interesting. The plant I worked in was 623 MW and received Petroleum Coke by belt conveyor from an adjacent refinery to burn in our Unit 1's CFB boiler to produce 136 of our net MW, AND send up to 160,000 pounds per hour of process steam back to the refinery. Because of the economics involved when the contracts were written, this generating unit is quite possibly the lowest cost fossil-fired generating unit in the United States. Its cost per MWH produced is actually lower than the Nuclear plants on our system.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 24, 2012 7:17:30 GMT
What control systems were you using, as a matter of interest?... Back in the 80's, I was using Trend, Satchwell, etc, the language was known as Trend, it was modular, and tailored to BEMS, HVAC, (Building energy Management Stems Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning) This was the biggest use of my programming skills I had ever known, as I had to learn the whole language "On the Fly", learn Degree Day, PID loops and a whole lot more HVAC terminology I had never heard of before.... It was also the early days of Windows, I was using Lotus 123 as well, and a RM Nimbus VX2 with a 40 meg hard drive PC Compatible. The plant I was working on (above) provided steam for Heating, DHW, and steam cleaning of Surgical instruments, and also a steam turbine that would fire up to power important bits should the power fail....like Life support and Theatres?... That was the first time I had seen an emergency generator THAT big?... Most of my work was done remotely at the office, but in certain cases, where plant was "miss-firing", I had to go to site to check loose connections or bad wiring faults, or in this case, supervise complete replacement of the control system... not a light job, the controller was the size of a suitcase, the whole control board was the size of a double wardrobe....THOUSANDS of wires... pre-built on the factory site, we had to do a "Hot Swap", because of the necessity to keep the plant running at all times, that involved running the two systems side by side transferring control one piece at a time.... The control schematic I had put in required the use of the Lap-Top being plugged in, as all system commands required "Authorisation", that allowed me to un-plug each boiler one by one for instance to transfer control without getting a "Fire" command whilst our engineer was swapping the wiring on the actual boiler.... 480v a/c up his fingertips tends to give him curly hair and a need to shout rude things at me?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 24, 2012 14:36:21 GMT
in case you missed the original link, this is a 606 MW power plant that delivers superheated steam to a nearby mill as a secondary product. This is getting interesting. The plant I worked in was 623 MW and received Petroleum Coke by belt conveyor from an adjacent refinery to burn in our Unit 1's CFB boiler to produce 136 of our net MW, AND send up to 160,000 pounds per hour of process steam back to the refinery. Because of the economics involved when the contracts were written, this generating unit is quite possibly the lowest cost fossil-fired generating unit in the United States. Its cost per MWH produced is actually lower than the Nuclear plants on our system. the primary generators were two natural gas turbines. the boilers were fired with the exhaust gas.
|
|