PAPER NO: TP03-01

CATEGORY: DRY COOLING

COOLING TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

WHY EVERY AIR COOLED STEAM

CONDENSER NEEDS A COOLING TOWER
LUC DE BACKER Ph.D.
WILLIAM M. WURTZ
HAMON DRY COOLING

The studies and conclusions reported in this paper are the results of the author’s own work. CTI has not investigated, and CTI
expressly disclaims any duty to investigate, any product, service process, procedure, design, or the like that may be described
herein. The appearance of any technical data, editorial material, or advertisement in this publication does not constitute
endorsement, warranty, or guarantee by CTI of any product, service process, procedure, design, or the like. CTI does not
warranty that the information in this publication is free of errors, and CTI does not necessarily agree with any statement or opinion
in this publication. The user assumes the entire risk of the use of any information in this publication. Copyright 2003. All rights
reserved. This paper has been reviewed by members of the Cooling Technology Institute and approved as a valuable contribution
to cooling tower literature; and presented by the author at the Annual Conference of CTI.

Presented at the 2003 Cooling Technology Institute Annual Conference

San Antonio, Texas – February 10-13, 2003
 Paper No TP03-01

WHY EVERY AIR COOLED CONDENSER NEEDS A COOLING TOWER

By Luc De Backer and William M. Wurtz

ABSTRACT

This technical paper will review the basic types of cooling systems utilized by utility
power plants, and explain the reasons why it is advantageous to include a cooling tower
in many dry cooling applications.

A system where a cooling tower is used in conjunction with an air cooled steam
condenser is called a parallel condensing system. This type of system utilizes three
traditional types of heat exchangers: a cooling tower, an air cooled steam condenser
and a surface condenser.

An optimized parallel condensing system reduces both investment costs and

operational costs while using a minimum amount of water.

Page 2 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

1. INTRODUCTION

In the steam cycle of a power plant, low-pressure water condensed in the steam
condenser is pumped to high pressure before it enters the boiler or Heat Recovery
Steam Generator (HRSG) where superheated steam is produced. The superheated
steam is sent to the steam turbine where the steam expands to low pressure providing
the energy to drive a generator. This low-pressure steam has to be condensed in a
condenser in order to complete the steam cycle.

The condensation of steam requires a cooling medium. Traditionally, this has been
achieved using water from a river, a stream, a pond or seawater. The cold water is
pumped through a heat exchanger and the warm water is discharged back to the water
source. This is called ONCE THROUGH cooling system.

A once through system is an open loop system. The need to reduce the vast amount of
water requires a closed loop system. Thus the WET COOLING system came into effect,
and soon after the DRY COOLING and HYBRID COOLING systems (see Table 1). In a
wet cooling system, water is circulated to condense the steam in the same type of heat
exchanger that is used in the once through cooling. The warm water, instead of being
rejected to the water source, is cooled in a cooling tower using air as the cooling
medium. Only the water carried away due to evaporation, drift and blow-down needs to
be replenished by make-up water.

Cooling System Time period

Once Through From 1930s
Wet Cooling From 1950s
Dry From 1970s
Hybrid From 1980s
Parallel From 1990s

Table 1: Evolution of cooling systems used in power plants [R1]

2. WET COOLING SYSTEMS

The wet cooling tower system is based on the principle of evaporation. The heated
cooling water coming out of the surface condenser is cooled as it flows through a
cooling tower, where air is forced through the tower by either mechanical or natural
draft.

In the United States, the natural draft tower, sometimes also called the hyperbolic tower
because of its shape, has most often be used at nuclear plants and large coal-fired
power plants. Natural draft cooling towers are primarily suited to very large cooling
water quantities. The advantage of a natural draft unit is that the power required for fans
is eliminated; these are very tall structures (up to 600 feet in height).

Page 3 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

In smaller power plants, all wet cooling towers are mechanical draft cooling towers,
where the air flow is accomplished by fans (see figure below).

TURBINE

steam

Surface condenser

condensate
Wet cooling tower
Figure 1: Indirect cooling system with a wet cooling tower and surface condenser.

The steam turbine is not directly connected to the cooling system, so this is in fact an
indirect cooling system. The steam from the steam turbine is condensed at the outside
of the surface condenser tubes, using cold water coming from the cooling tower. Part of
the cooling water is evaporated in the cooling tower, and a continuous source of fresh
water (makeup water) is required to operate a wet cooling tower.

Makeup requirements for a cooling tower consists of the summation of evaporation loss,
drift loss and blow-down.

2.1 Evaporation losses:

Evaporation losses can be estimated using the following equation:

m'evap = 0.00095 m'cool (Thot - Tcold )

where m’cool = cooling water flow rate at the tower inlet

Thot = cooling water temperature at tower inlet in °F
Tcold = cooling water temperature at tower outlet °F

Page 4 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

2.2 Drift:

Drift is entrained water in the tower discharge vapors. Drift loss is a function of the drift-
eliminator design, and a typical value is 0.005 % of the cooling water flow rate. New
developments in eliminator design make it possible to reduce drift loss below 0.0005 %.
Drift contains chemicals from circulating water.

Below a typical drift drop size spectrum is shown for a counter-flow cooling tower using
a modern type of drift eliminator [R2].

DRIFT DROP SIZE SPECTRUM

25%

20%
MASS (%)

15%

10%

5%

0%
0-15 15-35 35-65 65-115 115-170 170-230 230-275 275-525 > 525
DROPLET SIZE (MICRONS)

Figure 2. Cooling tower drift drop size spectrum [R2}

2.3 Blow-down:

The amount of blow-down can be calculated according to the number of cycles of

concentration required to limit scale formation. Cycles of concentration are the ratio of
dissolved solids in the recirculation water to dissolved solids in the makeup water.
Cycles of concentration involved with cooling tower applications typically range from
three to ten cycles. The amount of blow-down can be estimated from the following
equation:
m'evap
m'blowdown =
(cycles - 1)
2.4 Typical water consumption examples:

As an example, a 600 MW coal fired plant operating at 70 % annual capacity factor

typically would require between 5 x 106 m3 and 1 x 107 m3 of make-up water annually
[R3]. The make-up water requirements for nuclear and geothermal plants are even
higher.

Page 5 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

For a combined cycle power plant, the make-up water requirements will be generally
less than half of those for a fossil-fuelled plant of comparable size, since only one third
of the total electrical output is generated in the steam cycle. Below a typical example for
a cooling tower in a combined cycle plant with 2 gas turbines and 1 steam turbine:

ƒ Heat duty = 410.9 MW or 1,402 Mbtu/h

ƒ Water flow = 36,340 m3/h or 160,000 gpm
ƒ Range = 9.83 K or 17.69 deg F
ƒ Cold water temperature = 33.1 deg C or 91.5 deg F

The equations written above give the following results:

ƒ Evaporation loss = 611 m3/h or 2689 gpm

ƒ Drift loss (assuming 0.005 %) = 1.82 m3/h or 8 gpm
ƒ Blow-down (assuming 10 cycles of concentration) = 68 m3/h or 299 gpm
ƒ Total make-up water required = 681 m3/h or 2996 gpm

Fogging, icing of local roadways and drift that deposits water or minerals are some of
the concerns regarding the plume. The plume is in fact the condensed water that
evaporated from the cooling process. Thus, this condensed water is pure and free of
chemicals and minerals, although a plume is often associated with pollution. Other
environmental effects of cooling towers and technological solutions to reduce the impact
on the environment have been discussed in detail elsewhere [R4].

Sometimes because of the chemical content of the make-up water the blow-down
cannot be discharged outside of the boundaries of the power plant. This is the case in
power plants with “zero-discharge” requirements. But complete elimination of water
consumption in the cooling system can only be achieved by using dry cooling systems,
or air cooled condensers.

3. DRY COOLING SYSTEMS

In a dry cooling system, heat is transferred from the process fluid, steam, to the cooling
air via extended surfaces or fin tube bundles. The performance of dry cooling systems is
primarily dependent on the ambient dry bulb temperature of the air. Since the ambient
dry bulb temperature of the air is higher than the wet bulb temperature (wet bulb is the
basis for a wet cooling tower design), dry cooling systems are less efficient. Although
the capital cost of a dry cooling system is usually higher than that of a wet cooling
system, the cost of providing suitable cooling water and other operational and
equipment expenses may be such that the dry cooling system is more cost effective
over the projected life of the power plant.

Page 6 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

TURBINE

steam

condensate

Figure 3: Dry cooling system connected to steam turbine (direct system).

In dry cooling systems, the turbine exhaust is connected directly to the air cooled steam
condenser (that is why it is called a direct system) as shown in Figure 3. The steam
exhaust duct has a large diameter and is usually as short as possible to reduce
pressure losses. The finned tubes are arranged in the form of an A-frame to reduce the
required plot area. The advantages and disadvantages of dry cooling systems are
shown in table 2 below.

ADVANTAGES OF DRY COOLING DISADVANTAGES OF DRY COOLING

Can be located at fuel source Large plot area required
No water required Less efficient
No plume formation Generates more noise
No impact on environment
Less permitting required

Table 2: The advantages and disadvantages of dry cooling systems

Recent studies indicate that on average, one third of the new power plants permitted in
North America will require a dry cooling system. This is driven by the lack of water,
PM10, and EPA 316(A) and 316 (B) issues. PM10 is one of the seven air pollutants the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates under the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). PM10 is defined as particulate matter (PM) with a mass
median diameter less than 10 micrometers. EPA standards require the PM10
concentrations (expressed in the weight of particulate matter in a cubic meter of air) to
remain within certain limits.

Page 7 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

The PM10 concentration limits (24 hour and annual allowable average) are:

ƒ A 24 hour average not to exceed 150 micrograms per cubic meter of air more
than three times in three years
ƒ An annual arithmetic average not to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air

EPA also regulates the cooling water systems at electric generating plants and
manufacturers through sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Section
316(a) requires EPA to ensure that a cooling water system has not caused or will not
cause by continuing to operate, appreciable harm to the balanced indigenous
community; and allows a facility to demonstrate that thermal limitations under state
quality regulations are more stringent than necessary to protect the population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on the body of water into which the discharge is made.
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to ensure that the location, design,
construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology
available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

In some areas of the US, dry cooling will be the system of choice. In the state of
Massachusetts for example, air cooled condensers are used in 70 % of the recently built
power plants.

4. WET/DRY OR HYBRID COOLING SYSTEMS

Wet/dry or hybrid systems designed primarily for plume abatement are essentially wet
towers with just enough dry-cooling added to reduce the relative humidity of the
combined effluent from the wet and dry section below the point where a visible plume
will form under cool and high relative humidity conditions.

The atmospheric criteria for plume abatement are contrary to the criterion for heat
rejection. In other words, the hybrid tower when operating in plume abatement mode
has a lower cooling capacity compared with pure wet mode operation. However, since
part of the heat rejection occurs in the “dry” section of the hybrid tower during the in
plume-abatement mode, its water consumption is reduced slightly.

Generally, a hybrid tower is designed to dissipate approximately 20 to 40% of the total

heat load in the “dry” section to meet the atmospheric criteria for plume-abatement, but
it operates in plume-abatement mode for less than fifty percent of the time, thus
reducing water consumption by 10 to 20%. On an overall basis, the reduction of water
consumption in a hybrid cooling tower over the course of the year is usually limited.

Page 8 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

5. SELECTION CRITERIA BETWEEN DRY COOLING SYSTEMS AND WET TOWERS

Since a wet tower has a lower capital cost and has a better performance in hot weather,
it will be the best choice if sufficient water is available at reasonable cost. But even if
enough water is available, some other factors may play a role as well. At times of high
humidity and cool air temperature, a wet cooling tower is likely to produce a plume
which is a visible fog exiting the tower. While the plume is environmentally safe – it is
nothing but water – it can create visual problems or icing if the plant is located near a
highway, residential area or airport. A power plant in Linden, New Jersey, for example
went with a dry cooling system because of the twelve-lane New Jersey Turnpike next to
the plant and the effect that the plume from a wet cooling tower would have on icing and
fogging, which would be unacceptable [R5].

Dry cooling saves a lot of water but there is a price to pay for it; the capital cost is
significantly greater and there may be plant limitations on the hottest days. Also the heat
rate may be impacted on all but the coldest days. That is why dry cooling systems need
a performance enhancement during hot ambient temperatures. There are different ways
to enhance the performance of a 100 % dry cooling system, and one of them is spraying
water at the air inlet of the fans. The purpose of this system is to reduce the dry bulb
ambient temperature as close as possible to the inlet wet bulb ambient temperature
during hot and dry summer days, using evaporation of the water droplets at the air inlet.
However, adding a wet tower that needs only a limited use of water during summer
days is probably the most attractive available solution as will be shown in this paper.

6. THE PARALLEL CONDENSING SYSTEM (PCS)

Parallel condensing systems, have been developed to save water, while avoiding the
high cost of dry cooling systems and to ensure a relatively low steam turbine back
pressure at high ambient conditions.

An excessive rise in steam turbine backpressure during periods of peak ambient

temperatures and demand will result in a loss of efficiency of the steam turbine-
generator set. In such a case, the dry section of the system may be designed to reject
the total heat load at a low ambient temperature while maintaining the turbine
backpressure within specified limits at high ambient temperatures using the wet part of
the system. One way of sizing the wet part of a PCS cooling system is to limit the
quantity of make-up water according to the local water availability.

A PCS system is a synergy of established cooling system technologies and combines

some positive features of dry and wet cooling systems; the water consumption is
reduced compared to a 100 % wet system, the performance is improved compared to a
100 % dry system and the capital cost decreases as the proportion of wet in the PCS
system is increased.

Page 9 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

TURBINE ACC

steam

Surface condenser

condensate
Wet cooling tower
Figure 4. Parallel condensing system (Dry/wet cooling system).

Cooling system performance comparison

7.00
Turbine back pressure (inch HgA)

6.00 DRY

5.00
PCS

4.00

3.00 WET

2.00

1.00

0.00
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Dry bulb temperature (deg F)

Figure 5. Dry, PCS and wet cooling systems – comparison of the performance.

Page 10 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

A typical cooling system performance is shown in Fig 5.; the turbine back pressure is
plotted as function of the dry bulb temperature. As can be noticed, all three cooling
systems are similar in performance at reduced dry bulb temperatures. As the ambient
temperature rises, the dry cooling system is penalized the most and will have the
highest turbine back pressure.

The wet cooling system is able to maintain a much lower turbine back pressure at high
ambient temperatures. The performance of the PCS system is in between the dry and
wet cooling systems. The relative improvement of the PCS system with respect to the
100% dry cooling system is dependent on the amount of water that is used for wet
cooling.

Another way to express the cooling system performance, however, is to evaluate the
steam condensing capacity of the condenser at the maximum ambient dry bulb
temperature. For simplicity, only a qualitative comparison is shown in table 3 below.

STEAM CONDENSING CAPACITY COOLING SYSTEM

100 % WET
Up to 100 % PCS
Less than 100 % DRY

Table 3. Steam condensing capacity of the wet, PCS and dry cooling systems.

The steam condensing capacity in this context can be defined as the amount of steam
that can be condensed by the steam condenser in order to avoid a steam turbine trip,
100 % being full load. The advantage of the PCS system over the 100 % dry system is
obvious. In a situation where the load to the steam turbine has to be reduced at high
ambient temperatures with a dry cooling system, a PCS system can be designed in
such a way that the steam turbine can operate at full load without risk of a steam turbine
trip on a hot summer day. Under these design conditions, the air cooled condenser
alone would not be able to avoid a steam turbine trip at full load and maximum ambient
conditions.

In the following example we will show that by using some water for a wet cooling tower,
the capital investment can be reduced significantly compared with a dry cooling system.

DESIGN CONDITIONS VALUE in SI units VALUE in US units

ambient dry bulb temp 40.6 deg C 105 deg F
relative humidity 16% 16%
ambient wet bulb temp 21.0 deg C 69.8 deg F
atmospheric pressure 946 mbar 27.9 inch HgA
required thermal duty 445.4 MW 1521120739 BTU/hour
turbine back pressure < 270 mbar < 8.0 inch HgA

Table 4. Design conditions for the air cooled condenser and PCS system.

Page 11 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

A 100 % dry cooling system and a PCS system (using a small cooling tower) were
designed for the design conditions that are shown in the table 4.

The major requirement is to avoid a turbine trip (typical value is a turbine back pressure
lower than 270 mbar or 8 inch HgA) at the maximum ambient air temperature. In the
following study it was decided to design the PCS system in such a way that the wet
cooling tower should only operate on hot summer days (ambient dry bulb temperature
above 32 deg C or 90 deg F).

In the parallel condensing system, the wet cooling tower can be shut down in spring,
autumn and winter, because the dry portion of the cooling system is sufficient to handle
the required thermal duty. In the graph below it can be noticed that the dry portion of the
PCS system can handle the thermal duty up to an ambient temperature of about 32
degrees Celsius (90 deg F).

100%

80%

60%
WET PORTION
DRY PORTION
40%

20%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ambient air dry bulb temperature (deg C)

Figure 6. Wet and dry portion of the thermal duty as function of ambient dry bulb temp.

As the ambient air temperature rises, a larger portion of the duty is handled by the wet
cooling tower. At the maximum ambient dry bulb temperature, the wet cooling tower
rejects about 25 % of the total thermal duty.

The monthly average temperature distribution that we used in our example is given in
the graph (Fig. 7). Assuming that the air cooled condenser cannot handle the thermal
duty any more for ambient air temperatures exceeding 32 °C (89.6 °F), combined with
the temperature distribution from Figure 7 it is assumed that the wet cooling tower will
be working for only about 30 days per year, which is a reasonable design for a PCS
system.

Page 12 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

Mean temperature

Monthly average in degrees Celsius

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Figure 7. Monthly average temperature for the PCS system design.

Using the equations above, an estimate of the amount of make-up water that is required
to operate the wet cooling tower for one month per year can be done. Assuming a drift
of 0.005 % and 5 cycles of concentration for the blow-down, we arrive at a make-up flow
of about 68 kg/s (1080 gallons per minute).

Considering a cost of water of $2.00 per 1000 gallons of water, the predicted yearly cost
for make-up water should be about $100,000. The cost of water in an all wet system
would be $3,000,000 per year (using 3000 gpm make-up during 350 days a year).

An estimation of the capital costs for the wet part of the PCS cooling system is based on
the following breakdown [R6], as shown in table 5:

ELEMENT COST
Wet cooling tower 35 - 45 % of system cost
Installation/erection included in base price
Surface steam condenser 35 - 45 % of system cost
Tower basin 3 - 6 % of system cost
Electricals and controls Typically $25,000 per cell
Circulating water system 5 % of system cost
Water treatment/blowdown discharg 1 % of system cost

Table 5. Capital cost breakdown for the wet part of the PCS cooling system.

The capital cost of the air cooled condenser (reference value = 100 % dry cooling)
includes the cost for installation and erection, and is estimated at about $31.2 million for
a typical 500 MW combined cycle power plant.

Page 13 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

Table 6 compares the PCS system and an air cooled condenser (100 % dry) for capital
cost, plot area and fan power consumption. The figures assume that the cooling water
pumps (estimated at about 500 hp pump power) and the fans of the wet cooling tower
are only operating for about one month per year.

ITEM ALL DRY SYSTEM PCS SYSTEM

dry fraction of heat 100 73%
capital 100 79%
fan power 100 83%
plot 100 82%

Table 6. Comparison between air cooled condenser and PCS system.

As can be noticed from table 6, the introduction of a small cooling tower (typically two
cells) can reduce the capital cost by more than 20 % compared to a 100 % dry system
(remark: a 100 % dry system refers to a cooling system where an air cooled condenser
is responsible for one hundred percent of the total heat duty). Also the plot area and fan
power consumption are more favorable for the PCS system. Operational costs are
expected to be less for the PCS system in general.

7. CONCLUSION

Because of restrictions on thermal discharges to natural bodies of water, almost all

power generating plants or large industries requiring cooling will require closed cycle
cooling systems. Evaporative or wet cooling systems (cooling towers) generally are the
most economical choice for closed cycle cooling systems where an adequate supply of
suitable water is available at reasonable cost to meet the make-up requirements of
these systems. If only the plume is an issue the solution may be a wet/dry cooling
system (hybrid cooling towers). But although these systems may save some water, the
amount of make-up water is still significant and a plume will still be present under
certain atmospheric conditions, and this may be unacceptable if the power plant is close
to a major highway or airport.

If only a limited amount of water is available, or the water cost is too high, most power
plants tend to go for a 100 % dry system without considering the PCS system. In some
cases, a dry cooling system has been selected even if water is available at reasonable
cost where political or environmental considerations prevail. But by selecting a parallel
cooling system that is designed to use the available water for a cooling tower on hot
summer days, the performance of air cooled condensers can be enhanced and
significant savings on the capital and operational costs of the cooling system can be
expected. Moreover, the wet cooling tower can be shut down most of the time (except
on hot summer days), so the negative effects of a plume (fogging and icing in winter
months) are not an issue.

Page 14 of 15
 Paper No TP03-01

8. REFERENCES

R1: Comparison and optimization of cooling systems for coal fired plants, Ram
Chandran and William Wurtz, paper presented at Coal-Gen 2002.

R2: Wet/dry cooling towers for plume abatement and water conservation, Paul A.
Lindahl Jr., presented at the Air & Waste Management Association Symposium, San
Diego – Ca, May 2002.

R3: Air-cooled steam condensers and dry and hybrid cooling towers, Detlev G. Kroger,
Power-Gen competitive power college 111, Orlando – Fl, November 2000.

R4: The latest worldwide technology in environmentally designed cooling towers, by

Gary R. Mirsky, Jean-Pierre Libert, Kathy Briant and Franz Bouton, presented in
technical paper number TP92-02, and the 1992 CTI annual meeting in Houston – Tx.

R5: Power cooling primer, by Patricia Lloyd Williams, Independent Energy, Jan 1993.

R6: Wet and dry cooling – cost/performance tradeoffs, by John S. Maulbetsch,

presented at the Air & Waste Management Association Symposium, San Diego – Ca,
May 2002.

Page 15 of 15