Combined Cycle Combustion Turbines

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbines

Steven Simmons

February 27 2014

1

CCCT Today’s Discussion

1. Quick review from previous GRAC

2. CCCT Capacity Factors in the NW

3. Cost Review & Economies of Scale

4. Wet vs. Dry Cooling

5. Normalizations & Results

6. Reference Plant Proposals

2

CCCT Review – Last Meeting

CCCT Strengths & Trends Projects in the region

• Highly efficient power source – dispatchable and baseload • Can provide support for renewable power and serve as coal replacement • Becoming more flexible with rapid start times and better efficiency at part and min loads • Plenty of low priced gas

• 20 existing projects in region - Ave capacity 345 MW

• Port Westward in OR (PGE 2007) - 400 MW

• Langley Gulch in ID (ID Power 2012) - 330 MW

• Carty Generating Station in OR (PGE 2016) - 440 MW

3

CCCT Review – Last Meeting

Pricing of 4 advanced units using information from Gas Turbine World

Other cost estimates from E3, EIA, Power Council 6th Plan

Normalization of capital costs

O&M costs

Emissions

4

CCCT Last Meeting Follow Up

Discussion from previous GRAC

1. How capacity factors for CCCT units in the NW compare to other regions

2. Address dry-cooling costs in the reference plant

3. Units may be smaller in size in the NW

4. Propose reference plant(s)

5

CCCT Capacity Factors

Using information from SNL, I did a quick study on CCCT production data from the Northwest - defined as the entire states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington – along with a few selected NERC regions:

NPCC – the Northeastern US and Canada

WECC - the West (the Northwest is included)

TRE - most of Texas

MRO – the upper Midwest US and Canada

In addition – looked at capacity factor variability from a few selected CCCT units in relation to a hydro unit and a wind unit - all in the Columbia Gorge area.

Port Westward Generating Project in Oregon

Goldendale Generating Station in Washington

Dalles Hydro

Klondike II wind project

6


1. The Northwest ranks relatively low in terms of CCCT generation percentage – due to hydro production

2. Northwest CCCT Capacity Factors are similar to other regions during years with average hydro, but lower during strong hydro years – more variation year to year

3. Strong negative correlation between CCCT and hydro capacity factors – annually and monthly

7

CCCT Generation

8

1 - Northwest is relatively low in terms of CCCT generation percentage – due to hydro production

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NPCC (Northeast PCC) WECC Northwest (ID-MT-OR-WA)

TRE (Texas Reliability Entity)

MRO (Midwest Reliability Org.)

%

Percentage of Net Generation from CCCT in 2012


9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

%

Annual Capacity Factors for CCCT

Northwest (ID-MT-OR-WA) NPCC (Northeast PCC)

WECC TRE (Texas Reliability Entity)

MRO (Midwest Reliability Org.)

2 - Northwest CCCT Capacity Factors – similar to other regions during years with average hydro, but lower during strong hydro years


10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

CC

CT

Cap

acit

y Fa

cto

r %

Dalles Hydro Capacity Factor %

CCCT Capacity Factors Annual

Port Westward Generating Project Goldendale Generating Station

2012 2011 2008 2009 2010

3- Annual CCCT capacity factors strongly correlated to hydro


11

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

9_

20

11

10

_20

11

11

_20

11

12

_20

11

1_

20

12

2_2

01

2

3_

20

12

4_

20

12

5_

20

12

6_

20

12

7_

20

12

8_

20

12

9_

20

12

10

_20

12

11

_20

12

12

_20

12

1_

20

13

2_

20

13

3_

20

13

4_

20

13

5_

20

13

6_

20

13

7_

20

13

8_

20

13

%

Capacity Factors - Monthly

Port Westward Gen. Project CCCT Goldendale Gen. Station CCCT

Dalles Hydro Klondike II Wind

Operation Capacity (MW) 1. Dalles 1823 2. Port Westward 392 3. Goldendale 282 4. Klondike II 75

3- Monthly Capacity Factors also correlate to hydro

CCCT Costing Sources

Northwest Power and Conservation

Council E3 EIA

Gas Turbine World

California Energy

Commission

Date 2010 Oct 2012, Dec 2013 Apr 2013 2013 Apr 2006

Title 6th Plan

Cost and Performance

Review of Generation

Technologies Recommendations for WECC 10- and

20- Year Study Process

Updated Capital Cost

Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity

Generating Plants

Prepared by SAIC

2013 GTW Handbook

Cost and Value of

Water Use at Combined

Cycle Power Plants

12

CCCT Costing - GTW

Used 2013 version of Gas Turbine World (GTW) to price 3 advanced CCCT plants 1. Mitsubishi Heavy Industry MPCP1 (M501J)

2. Siemens SCC6 8000H (SGT6-8000H)

3. Alstom KA24-1 (GT24)

GTW provides a consensus of what project developers, owners, operators, and OEM suppliers agree on as reasonable for budgeting purposes for a bare bones plant

Exhibit economies of scale

13

14

Unit size and heat rate inversely related

Output 456MW

Output 398 MW

Output 321 MW

5,900

6,000

6,100

6,200

6,300

6,400

6,500

6,600

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

MPCP1(M501J) SCC6-8000H(SGT6-8000H) KA24-1(GT24)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Siemens Alstom

Hea

t R

ate

btu

/kW

MW

Ou

tpu

t

CCCT - Output and Heat Rate

Output MW Heat Rate btu/kWh

Heat Rate

Heat Rate

15

Economy of Scale: Unit size and capital cost inversely related to cost/kW

$ (mm) 481

$ (mm) 425

$ (mm) 347

1040

1045

1050

1055

1060

1065

1070

1075

1080

1085

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

MPCP1(M501J) SCC6-8000H(SGT6-8000H) KA24-1(GT24)

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Siemens Alstom

$/k

W

$ (

mm

)

CCCT - Cost and $ per kW

Overnight Cost (mm) Mid Overnight Cost ($/kW) Mid

$/kW

$/kW

CCCT Water Cooling

3 Types of Cooling

1. Once Through Cooling - no longer used for new plants

2. Wet Cooling - recirculating system with a steam surface condenser and wet cooling tower

3. Dry Cooling - forced draft air-cooled condenser

16

CCCT Water Cooling

17

* From CEC

CCCT Water Cooling

18

Using the Central Valley as an example,

going from Wet Cooling to Dry Cooling results in a

96% drop in water usage

13.5 % increase in capital cost

1.5 % increase in heat rate

CCCT Projects Lodi Energy Center Langley Gulch Carty Gen Station

In Service 2012 2012 2016

Location Lodi, CA New Plymouth ID Boardman, OR

Elevation 50 2260 308

Model 1x1 Siemens SCC6-5000F 1x1 Siemens SGT6-5000F

1x1 MHI M501GAC

Capacity MW 296 330 440

Capital $ (mm)

388 389.4 447.5

$/kW 1,311 1,180 1,017

Note

Wet cooling - uses treated wastewater from a nearby

municipal wastewater treatment plant

Wet Cooling Wet Cooling

19

Normalization Adjustments

Output Related – MW Heat Rate Related

(btu/kWh) Cost Related $

Configuration - 2x1 to 1x1 Configuration - 2x1 to 1x1 Configuration - 2x1 to 1x1

Duct Firing Duct Firing Duct Firing

Inlet & Exhaust Losses Inlet & Exhaust Losses

Electrical & Mechanical Auxiliaries

Electrical & Mechanical Auxiliaries

Location Elevation – Boardman OR (308 ft)

Location Labor - OR

Water Cooling – Wet to Dry Water Cooling – Wet to Dry

Fuel Heating Value – LHV to HHV

Year Dollar - 2012

20

21

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/k

W 2

01

2

Normalized CCCT Overnight Capital Cost $/kW Wet Cooling

NPCC 6th Plan H-Class Langley Gulch Carty Generating Station

Lodi Energy Center EIA H-Class E3 H-Class

NPCC/GTW Alstom GT24 NPCC/GTW Siemens H-Class NPCC/GTW MHI J-Class

15% cost bound

22

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

$/k

W 2

01

2

Normalized CCCT Overnight Capital Cost $/kW Dry Cooling

EIA H-Class E3 H-Class NPCC/GTW Siemens H-Class NPCC/GTW Alstom GT24 NPCC/GTW MHI J-Class

15 % cost bound

23

Manuf/Source Model (GT) Vintage Capital Cost -

$/kW Output - MW Heat Rate - btu/kW

Cost - $

mm Configuration Cooling Source

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MPCP1 (M501J) 2013 1,045 469 6,365 490 1X1 Wet GTW 2013

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries MPCP1 (M501J) 2013 1,186 469 6,459 556 1X1 Dry GTW 2013

Siemens Energy SCC6-8000H(SGT6-

8000H) 2013 1,195 412 6,628 492 1X1 Dry GTW 2013

Siemens Energy SCC6-8000H(SGT6-

8000H) 2013 1,052 412 6,531 433 1X1 Wet GTW 2013

Alstrom KA24-2(GT24) 2013 1,200 336 6,858 404 1X1 Dry GTW 2013

Alstrom KA24-2(GT24) 2013 1,057 336 6,758 355 1X1 Wet GTW 2013

Advanced Reference Plant H-Class 2013 1,236 N/A 6,900 N/A 1X1 Dry E3 2013

Advanced Reference Plant H-Class 2013 1,165 N/A 6,700 N/A 1X1 Wet E3 2013

Advanced Reference Plant

2013 H-Class 2013 1,153 400 6430 461 1x1 Dry EIA 2013


2013 H-Class 2013 1,054 400 6430 421 1x1 Wet EIA 2013


2010 H-Class 2010 1,175 Dry EIA 2013


2010 H-Class 2010 1,074 Wet EIA 2013

NPCC 6TH PLAN H-Class 2013 1,194 390 7,033 466 1x1 Dry NPCC 6th

Plan

NPCC 6TH PLAN H-Class 2013 1,051 390 6930 410 1x1 Wet NPCC 6th

Plan

Langley Gulch Siemens SGT6-5000F 2010 1,161 353 n/a 410 1X1 Wet Tracking

Sheet

Carty Generating Station 1x1 Mitsubishi

M501GAC 2014 1,017 440 n/a 447.5 1X1 Wet

Tracking

Sheet

Lodi Energy Center 1x1 Siemens SCC6-

5000F 2010 1,264 293 n/a 371 1x1 Wet

Tracking

Sheet

CCCT data normalized with reference plants highlighted

CCCT Reference Plants

24

Ref Plant Adv 1 Ref Plant Adv 2

Model/Tech Siemens H-Class Model/Tech MHI J-Class

Location Boardman OR Location Boardman OR

Earliest In Service 2014 Earliest In Service 2018

Configuration 1X1 Configuration 1X1

Cooling Wet Cooling Dry

Baseload Capacity 392 MW Baseload Capacity 449

Duct Firing Augmentation 20 MW Duct Firing Augmentation 20

Net Capacity 412 MW Net Capacity 469

Heat Rate 6,531 btu/kWh Heat Rate 6,459

Capital Cost Overnight 433 $ mm Capital Cost Overnight 556

Capital Cost $/kW 1,052 $/kW Capital Cost $/kW 1,186

Fixed O&M 15.37 $/kW/yr Fixed O&M 15.37

Variable O&M 3.27 $/MWh Variable O&M 3.27

Economic Life 30 years Economic Life 30

Annual Life Cycle Degradation 0.39 - 0.31 %/year Annual Life Cycle Degradation 0.39 - 0.31

Ave Life Cycle Net Capacity 389 MW Ave Life Cycle Net Capacity 443

Ave Life Cycle Heat Rate 6,833 btu/kWh Ave Life Cycle Heat Rate 6,758

Life Cycle $/kW 1,113 $/kW Life Cycle $/kW 1,255

Combined Cycle Combustion Turbines

Documents