POWER

UNDERSTANDING WATER TREATMENT CONCERNS WITH AIR-COOLED

CONDENSERS
Abstract
Dry cooling systems (air cooled condensers, ACCs) for condensing steam
in power plants have been increasingly
included in new unit design over the
past couple of decades. Water scarcity,
or the inability to use existing supplies
for cooling, are the primary drivers in
this direction. Various trade-offs are
encountered in comparing wet and dry
cooling, including turbine performance,
capital cost, steam cycle chemistry and
corrosion, and environmental impact.
Certain design and operating options
can be selected to mitigate some of
these issues.
Introduction
Steam-generating power plants require
the removal of a significant amount of
latent heat as low-pressure (LP) turbine
exhaust steam is condensed to liquid water. This function has traditionally been
accomplished by condensing the steam
on the surface of tubes through which
cooling water flows. Large volumes of
water are required to cool this steam in
a once-through cooling design about
500 million gallons of water must be
pumped daily through the condenser
cooling tubes for a 750-megawatt (MW)
steam turbine.
In 2004, Section 316(b) of the U.S.
Clean Water Act was amended to require mitigation of potential damage
to wildlife at the point of cooling water
intake, for plants taking in more than
50 million gallons of water per day. In

addition to water intake concerns, the

temperature of this water is significantly
elevated when it is returned to its source,
thus raising the possibility of altering
natural environmental conditions in the
receiving water body. In a recirculating
cooling tower design, much less water
is required (about 10 million gallons
per day for a 750-MW steam turbine),
but 75% to 80% of this water is lost to
evaporation. The water is concentrated
in the cooling tower, perhaps from 5 to
15 times, and the concentration of various constituents may thus be unacceptably high for discharge into a receiving
water body.
In 2014, Section 316(b) was amended
to require intake mitigation for the
extraction of only 2 million gallons of
water per day, depending on the specific
scenario, which places an additional
economic burden on power plants for
the protection of wildlife at intake
structures (1). These regulations, along
with increasingly stringent water quality
requirements for plant discharge, have
contributed to increased consideration

of using air cooled condensers in new

plant construction. From an engineering
perspective, dry cooling is undesirable
if wet cooling is available (2). The wide
fluctuations in ambient air temperature
result in less effective cooling than
with water that will retain an adequate
temperature for efficient cooling under
nearly all ambient conditions. As a
result, power plants with ACCs typically experience high backpressure and
consequent load reduction in hot weather
(commonly about 15% of steam turbine
output), often when power demand by
customers is the greatest.
Brief History
Since the late 1960s, the installation
of ACCs in new unit construction has
been increasing, and particularly since
the early 1990s. The initial applications
were primarily for coal-fired boilers in
South Africa and the Western United
States where a decision was made to
minimize fuel transportation costs by
locating stations near coal mines in
water-starved regions. This practice

By Andrew Howell
(Xcel Energy)

ISSN:0747-8291. COPYRIGHT (C) Media

Analytics Ltd. Reproduction in whole, or in part,
including by electronic means, without permission
of publisher is prohibited. Those registered with the
Copyright Clearance Center (www.copyright.com)
may photocopy this article for a flat fee per copy.
ULTRAPURE WATER July 2016

Figure 1. Example of power station with air cooling system.

has continued in the 21st century with

additional coal-fired ACC plants built
in these areas, as well as in China and
Australia. With the dramatic increase in
construction of gas-fired combined cycle
units over the past 20 years, inclusion of
ACCs has been common, particularly
in the Western United States. In addition, several concentrated solar plants
(CSPs) placed into operation in recent
years have employed ACCs as a natural
fit, given the typical water deficiency in
areas where the large acreage necessary
for CSPs exists.
In recent years, several factors have
led to the increased utilization of ACCs
in areas where plentiful water supplies
would seem to be available for cooling.
The primary reason for selecting an ACC
in these cases is the regulatory burden of
obtaining access to the water, impacted
by both the expense of meeting 316(b)
requirements and the additional time
required to obtain approval for water use.
As a result, ACCs have been built for
a number of units in the Eastern United
States, Western U.S. coastal areas (with
potential seawater access), and Europe.
On occasion, other factors may dominate the decision to build a plant with
ACC. Examples include where the
steam plume from cooling towers would
cause visibility problems on an adjacent
freeway during cold weather, and where
a neighborhood refused to allow cooling tower plumes for aesthetic reasons.
Figure 1 shows an example of a power
plant with ACC.
Direct Cooled ACCs
The concept of direct air cooling is
simple: air is forced across heat exchange
tubes containing LP turbine exhaust
steam, the steam is condensed into a
hot well and returned to the boiler/heat
recovery steam generators (HRSGs). In
practice, optimal design and operation is
more complicated. Because of the inefficiency of dry cooling, the structure is
large, commonly occupying an area of
similar size to the rest of the plant.
Consequently, the capital cost for an
ACC is significantly greater than for a wet
cooling tower. While the mechanical portion of the structure is limited to fans with
gearboxes and motors, there are many
fans (~40 for a 120MW steam turbine),
they are very large (normally greater than
2

30feet in diameter), gearboxes often

require significant maintenance, and
motors draw a significant power load
(roughly 8 MW for 45 fans operating at
full power). Direct-drive electric motors
are being evaluated as an alternative to
geared systems.
Additionally, wind speed and direction
(if not addressed properly) can play a
major role in limiting ACC performance,
causing fan blade/gearbox damage and
stalling fans, even leading to unit trips
on high backpressure (3). Minimizing
the recirculation of hot air is another
important concern that must be addressed in design, with ambient wind
playing a significant role in this issue,
as well. Freezing can be a problem in
cold locations (4). On the positive side,
the structures are relatively simple in
concept, and when working smoothly
can be easier to operate than cooling
towers, which have their own problems
such as water treatment, fans, motors,
and pumps.
Indirect cooling (commonly known
as Heller) systems occupy a small
percentage of dry cooling applications
worldwide, although their installation
has been increasing in recent years,
particularly in China. Indirect cooling
has some particular advantages over
direct cooling in certain situations (5).
Figure 2 provides a comparison of an
ACC system (left) with a conventional
cooling tower system (right).
Optimizing Direct Cooled ACC
A number of approaches have been taken
to mitigate performance limitations with
dry cooling, with varying levels of ef-

fectiveness. The benefit of adding cells

to ACCs to enhance cooling has been
evaluated, and in some cases implemented (6, 7). Upgrading fan output
has been done to increase airflow over
cooling tubes. The cooling tubes themselves have been re-designed over time
for optimal efficiency with the current
configuration in most widespread use
being approximately 8-inch by -inch
tubes in a single-row design, typically
constructed of carbon steel with aluminum fins, to balance efficient operation
with minimum construction cost.
Water has been sprayed into fan inlets to increase the density of cooling
air. Periodic water-washing to remove
debris from the finned tubes is essential
to maintain optimal heat transfer. A few
units have been designed with hybrid
cooling, where a portion of the steam
is directed to a traditional water-cooled
condenser (WCC) with cooling tower,
and the other portion to the ACC (8).
The addition of a WCC is also a relatively easy retrofit to an ACC, provided
sufficient cooling water is available for
its operation. Wind screens in various
configurations have often proven very
effective at protecting fans from both
performance and component degradation (9).
Environmental Trade-offs
In recent years, approval for new plant
construction with wet cooling has become increasingly difficult in the United
States, even in areas where water is
plentiful, including at sites along the
ocean with seawater access. These decisions have been made with the intent

Figure 2. Simple diagram air cooling condenser (left) compared to a conventional cooling tower
system (right).
Source: GEA

ULTRAPURE WATER July 2016

of protecting aqueous environments.

However, the inefficiencies of dry cooling operation have resulted in a marginal
increase in CO2 emissions per unit of
electricity generated from plants with
ACCs, thus reducing the overall environmental benefit of avoiding water use
for cooling. Unless more efficient ACC
operation can be obtained, it is easy to
envision a future scenario in which ACC
plants are subject to reduced operation
or even permanent shutdown based on
this inefficiency (10).
Steam Cycle Chemistry
The environment for LP turbine exhaust
steam in ACCs is very similar, in some
respects, to that for WCCs. The steam/
condensate temperature and backpressure are typically somewhat higher in
ACCs, and the turbine is designed to
operate at higher backpressure. However, the physical environment through
which steam condenses is very different,
in that unlike the 10 to 15 feet through
which steam passes before encountering cooling tubes in a WCC, steam
must typically pass through dozens or
hundreds of feet before it condenses in
an ACC. Furthermore, the carbon steel
surface area in an ACC is vastly greater
than in a WCC, since virtually all steam
surfaces in the ACC are carbon steel
for economic reasons, including heat
exchange surfaces, whereas in a WCC
the only carbon steel present is in support structures. This can result in the
transport of large quantities of iron oxide
corrosion products in ACCs, even at relatively low corrosion rates. Additionally,
the carbon steel support structures in a
WCC are thick-walled (typically 0.50 to
0.75 inch), and rarely corrode to failure,
even after decades of service.
In an ACC, heat exchange tubes are
thin-walled (0.059 in is a typical wall
thickness specification), and corrosion to
failure can occur, resulting in air inleakage with its consequent problems for unit
performance and contaminant ingress to
the steam cycle. The importance of minimizing tube leaks in ACCs is magnified
by the difficulty in locating such leaks.
Consider that there may be some
20,000 tubes in a large ACC, each one
about 35 feet long and difficult to access along much of its length, and in an
outdoor environment that includes fans
ULTRAPURE WATER July 2016

Figure 3. What ideal upper duct access would be like for an ACC system.

moving large volumes of air. Clearly the

application of tracer gas for leak detection can be quite challenging. Inleakage
has reportedly been successfully identified by acoustic and infrared devices, as
well as tracer gas.
Consequently, an environment conducive to minimal corrosion of carbon
steel is necessary for the steam cycle
of ACCs. The simplest means of accomplishing this is to maintain pH in
the range of 9.8 to 10.0 with ammonia,
or perhaps somewhat lower with a suitable neutralizing amine (11). Elevating
the pH of LP turbine exhaust steam
has been demonstrated to reduce iron
transport from ACCs (12). (Note: While
neutralizing amines may have significant
benefit for reducing corrosion in ACCs,
issues such as amine decomposition and
degradation of condensate polisher performance have not been fully evaluated
to ensure their optimal use.)
Off-line corrosion of ACCs is anticipated to contribute significantly to
corrosion product transport, although
this has not been well quantified. Because of the difficulty in minimizing
iron transport under all circumstances,
it is strongly advised that a full-flow
condensate particle filter be employed
in ACC operation.
On the other hand, because the primary
contaminants resulting from inleakage
are O2 and CO2 from air, both of which
are relatively innocuous to corrosion of

carbon steel at elevated pH. Therefore,

condensate polishing may not be necessary, provided that the steam-cycle
makeup water is properly designed and
alarmed to notify of contamination.
Polishing systems that also serve as
effective particulate filters (powdered
resin types) may be a good option for
consideration, although ion exchange
capacity is limited (13). Consequently,
in the event that a WCC and ACC are
combined in a hybrid arrangement,
deep-bed condensate polishing is an
important requirement, particularly as
heavy boiler/HRSG deposition (due to
high rates of iron transport) may result
in a high risk of under-deposit corrosion,
should a leak in the WCC tubing occur.
Other possible solutions that have
been considered to address the ACC
corrosion problem include use of a more
corrosion-resistant material for the tubes
or as inlet inserts (costly options for these
large structures), coating inlets with a
material such as epoxy, use of filming
amines (promising but not proven in the
application), or design changes to reduce
inlet turbulence.
An issue that has arisen in multiple
ACC units, without resolution at this
time, is the presence of aluminum in
steam turbine deposits. The manufacture
of tubes with aluminum coating/fins on
the exterior provides an evident potential
source of aluminum, but confirmation
has not yet been determined.
3

of corrosion, which does not correlate with

typical flow-induced metal loss, including
either single-phase or two-phase flowaccelerated corrosion (FAC) (1416).
Furthermore, the temperature at which
this corrosion takes place is about 120o F,
lower than where either FAC mechanism
is active. At this point, preliminary consideration suggests that intergranular
corrosion takes place beneath a surface
layer of iron oxide, and is accelerated
under low-pH conditions. Once this
corrosion has developed sufficiently, it is
thought that perhaps high steam velocity
dislodges the oxide and corroded metal
grains, possibly supported by a fatiguing
effect of the turbulent flow.
Figure 4 provides an example of metal
loss at the cross pieces, while Figure 5
shows metal loss at the tube entries.

Figure 4. Example of metal loss at the cross pieces.

Figure 5. Example of metal loss at the tube entries.

ACC Steamside Inspections

An essential means of evaluating the
extent of corrosion at tube inlets (and
thus the effectiveness of the steam-cycle
chemistry program) is to perform internal
inspections periodically. Ideally, these
would be done on an annual basis on at
least a couple of the upper ducts in an
ACC, but if permanent access ladders
and platforms are not in place, arranging
for scaffolding and inspections is more
troublesome and yearly inspections may
not take place. Figure 3 shows what ideal
upper duct access would be like for an
ACC system. An index known as DHACI
(Dooley, Howell ACC Corrosion Index)
has been developed to readily define the
4

status of corrosion in ACCs, and information on how to conduct these inspections

is provided elsewhere (12, 14).
ACC Tube Corrosion Mechanism
The precise mechanism for corrosion of
carbon steel in the LP turbine exhaust
steam environment of ACCs has not
been determined. Because this corrosion
occurs primarily at tube entries where
turbulent velocity is high, and also is very
directional (occurs on surfaces facing
steam flow), there is clearly a significant
flow component. However, examination
of corroded ACC tubes (as well as some
analogous WCC carbon steel materials)
has clearly shown an intergranular mode

Conclusions
Employment of dry cooling with aircooled condensers has been an increasing trend in new power generation for a
variety of reasons, primarily associated
with inadequate water supplies and
environmental protection, despite inherent inefficiencies of the technology
that require increased fuel consumption
per megawatt generated. In some cases,
the inefficiency of dry cooling could be
easily addressed by permitting the use
of available water to achieve adequate
backpressure in hot weather. The retrofit
of wet cooling systems for seasonal use
is relatively simple, if an adequate water
supply is available.
The installation of indirect cooled
ACCs allows easier use of water-enhanced spray cooling than with directcooled systems. Research into alternative
water-saving cooling systems is active
and ongoing, as well.
In addition to inefficiency issues, large
steamside carbon steel surface areas and
thin-walled carbon steel heat exchange
tubing have increased the risk of both
iron transport and air inleakage with
traditional steam cycle chemistry treatment programs. At this time, the best
confirmed options for reducing these
risks are elevating the steam-cycle pH
and including a full-flow condensate
particulate filter in the system, although
investigations are ongoing into identifying the corrosion mechanism and thus
providing more optimal mitigation.
ULTRAPURE WATER July 2016

References
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cooling Water Intake Structures 316(b),
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/
cwa/316b/ (2013 revision).
2. Comment by anonymous ACC OEM representative (April 2008).
3. Goldschagg, H. Winds of Change at Eskoms
Matimba Plant, Modern Power Systems,
pp. 43-45 (January 1999).
4. Jackson, P. Assessing Remaining Life for an
Old and Cold ACC, ACCUG Users Group,
Pueblo, CO, http://acc-usersgroup.org/2010-2/
jackson-p-limiting-damage-mechanismsfor-old-acc-at-cold-weather-site/ (September
2010).
5. Zekovich, A.; Gregasz, A. Direct Air-Cooled
Condensing versus Indirect Air-Cooled Condensing Comparison Studies, ACCUG Users
Group, Summerlin, NV, http://acc-usersgroup.
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/17-Zekovich.ACCUG_.pdf (October 2013).
6. Plant Report: Black Hills Power ACCs,
ACCUG Users Group, Gillette, Wyoming,
http://acc-usersgroup.org/presentations/2012conference/03-black-hills-power-accs/ (September 2012).
7. Goldschagg, H. ACC Expansion: Considering the Options To Add Fan Modules to the
Matimba ACCs, ACCUG Users Group,
Summerlin, NV, http://acc-usersgroup.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/10/12-Goldschagg.
ACC-expansion-presentation-rev1.pdf (October 2013).
8. Difilippo, M.; Maulbetsch, J. Hybrid Cooling
System Overview, ACCUG Users Group,
Gillette, WY, http://acc-usersgroup.org/
presentations/2012-conference/07-hybridcooling-system-overview/ (September 2012).
9. Difilippo, M.; Maulbetsch, J. Wind Screen
Study. ACCUG Users Group, September
2014, San Diego, California, http://accusersgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/
Windscreen-Study.John-Maulbetsch-Maulbetsch-Consulting-and-Mike-Difilippo-MNDConsulting.pdf

14. ACCUG Steering Committee, ACCUG.01:

Guidelines for Internal Inspection of AirCooled Condensers, Initial Version 05-122015, http://acc-usersgroup.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/02/ACC-inspection-guidelines05.12.2015-Initial-Version.pdf (May 12,
2015).
15. Howell, A. Carbon Steel Corrosion in WaterCooled Condenser, Power Plant Chemistry
10(12), pp. 26-31 (December 2008).
16. Howell, A. Carbon Steel Corrosion in the
Low-Pressure Turbine Exhaust Environment,
Power Plant Chemistry 12(10), pp. 646-651
(October 2010).

Author Andrew Howell

has B.A. and M.S. degrees in chemistry from
the University of Missouri Columbia, and
a doctorate in chemistry
with a metallurgy minor from the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colo.
He currently provides support for Xcel
Energys power stations as a hands-on
consultant, and is also responsible for
overseeing chemistry programs at Xcel
Energys power plants in Colorado. Dr.
Howell has worked for Xcel Energy and
its predecessor companies since 1982.
This paper was given at the 35th annual Electric Utility Chemistry Workshop that was conducted June
2-4, 2015, at the Hawthorn Suites in Champaign, IL.

Key words: AIR COOLING,

CONSERVATION, COOLING
TOWERS, CORROSION,
ECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL,
MAINTENANCE, POWER,
SCALING, SUSTAINABILITY

10. Howell, A., Consideration of the Environmental Impact of Wet versus Dry Cooling for
Combined-Cycle Power Plants, ASME Power
2014-32103, Baltimore, MD (July 2014).
11. International Association for the Properties of
Water and Steam, Technical Guidance Document, Volatile Treatments for the Steam-Water
Circuits of Fossil and Combined Cycle/HRSG
Power Plants (2015).
12. Dooley, B.; Aspden, D.; Howell, A.; Du Preez,
F. Assessing and Controlling Corrosion in AirCooled Condensers, Power Plant Chemistry
11(5), pp. 264-274 (May 2009).
13. Royal, G. When is Condensate Polishing
Justified in a CCGT Plant with an ACC?,
ACCUG Users Group, Gillette, WY, http://
acc-usersgroup.org/presentations/2012conference/05-when-is-condensate-polishingjustified-in-a-ccgt-plant-with-an-acc/ (September 2012).

ULTRAPURE WATER July 2016