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
CCCT Capacity Factors
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
CCCT Capacity Factors
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
CCCT Capacity Factors
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
CCCT Capacity Factors
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
Advanced Reference Plant
2013 H-Class 2013 1,054 400 6430 421 1x1 Wet EIA 2013
Advanced Reference Plant
2010 H-Class 2010 1,175 Dry EIA 2013
Advanced Reference Plant
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