EIA Projected Power Plant Costs
EIA Projected Power Plant Costs
EIA Projected Power Plant Costs
Generation Plants
November 2010
U. S. Energy Information Administration
Office of Energy Analysis
This report was prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the statistical and analytical agency
within the U.S. Department of Energy. By law, EIA’s data, analyses, and forecasts are independent of approval by
any other officer or employee of the United States Government. The views in this report therefore should not be
construed as representing those of the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies.
The current and future projected cost of new electricity generation capacity is a critical input into
the development of energy projections and analyses. The cost of new generating plants plays an
important role in determining the mix of capacity additions that will serve growing loads in the
future. New plant costs also help to determine how new capacity competes against existing
capacity, and the response of the electricity generators to the imposition of environmental
controls on conventional pollutants or any limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.
The current and projected future costs of energy-related capital projects, including but not
limited to new electric generating plants, have been subject to considerable change in recent
years. EIA updates its cost and performance assumptions annually, as part of the development
cycle for the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). For the AEO2011 cycle, EIA commissioned an
external consultant to develop current cost estimates for utility-scale electric generating plants.1
This paper briefly summarizes the design of the project and provides a summary of its main
findings, including a comparison of the new estimates to those used in AEO2010. The final
section discusses how EIA uses information on cost and other factors in modeling technology
choice in the electric power sector.
In order to maximize its value to EIA and external energy analysts, the project focused on
gathering current information regarding the “overnight”2 cost for a wide range of generation
technologies, while taking care to use a common boundary in the costing exercise across those
technologies. The cost estimates for each technology were developed for a generic facility of a
specific size and configuration, and assuming a location without unusual constraints or
infrastructure needs.
Current information is particularly important during a period when actual and estimated costs
have been evolving rapidly, since the use of up-to-date cost estimates for some technologies in
conjunction with estimates that are two, three, or even five years old for others can significantly
skew the results of modeling and analysis. Where possible, costs estimates were based on
information regarding actual or planned projects available to the consultant. When this
information was not available, project costs were estimated by using costing models that account
for current labor and material rates that would be necessary to complete the construction of a
generic facility.
The use of a common boundary for costing is also very important. From experience in reviewing
many costing studies for individual technologies, EIA is well aware that differences in practices
regarding the inclusion or exclusion of various components of costs can have a large impact on
overall cost estimates. This includes the categories of civil and structural costs (e.g., allowance
1
EIA’s electricity modeling includes both combined heat and power (CHP) technologies as well as a variety of
distributed generation technologies, but those technologies were not addressed in the study, which focused on
technologies within the electric power sector.
2
“Overnight cost” is an estimate of the cost at which a plant could be constructed assuming that the entire process
from planning through completion could be accomplished in a single day. This concept is useful to avoid any
impact of financing issues and assumptions on estimated costs. Starting from overnight cost estimates, EIA’s
electricity modeling explicitly takes account of the time required to bring each generation technology online and the
costs of financing construction in the period before a plant becomes operational.
2
for site preparation, drainage, underground utilities, and buildings), project indirect costs (e.g., a
construction contingency), and owners costs (e.g., development costs, preliminary feasibility and
engineering studies, environmental studies and permitting, legal fees, insurance costs, property
taxes during construction, and the electrical interconnection costs, including a plant switchyard
and tie-in to nearby transmission).
Summary of updated overnight capital costs estimates and comparison to information used in
AEO2010
Table 1 summarizes the updated cost estimates for the generic utility-scale generation plants
represented in EIA’s model, including 7 powered by coal, 6 by natural gas, 3 by solar energy, 2
each by wind, hydro, biomass, and geothermal power, and 1 each by uranium and municipal
solid waste. For some plant types there are several options shown to better represent the range of
plants that might be built and their costs. For example, both single unit and dual unit advanced
pulverized coal plants are shown, because many plants include multiple units and the costs
associated with the dual unit configuration might better reflect the costs of most plants built.
Similarly, solar photovoltaic technologies include a relatively small 7 MW system and a much
larger 150 MW system, because there is such variance in the sizes of the facilities being
considered. The nominal capacity of the generic plants ranges from a 7 megawatt (MW) solar
plant to a 2,236 MW advanced dual-unit nuclear plant, reflecting the significant variation in the
scale of utility applications. Each technology is characterized by its overnight capital costs, heat
rate (where applicable), non-fuel operations and maintenance costs, and, though not shown in
Table 1, its environmental characteristics.
Table 2 compares the updated overnight cost estimates to those used as inputs to the AEO2010.
To facilitate comparisons, both are shown in real year 2010 dollars. Notable changes between
the updated estimates and the AEO2010 values include:
� Coal & Nuclear: The updated overnight capital cost estimates for coal and nuclear
power plants are 25 to 37 percent above those in AEO2010. The higher cost estimates
reflect many factors including the overall trend of rising costs of capital intensive
technology in the power sector, higher global commodity prices, and the fact that there
are relatively few construction firms with the ability to complete complex engineering
projects such as a new nuclear or advanced coal power plant. The study assumes cost-
sharing agreements between the project owner and the project construction contractors
are reflective of those recently observed in the marketplace. As shown in Table 1, dual
unit coal and nuclear plants generally have lower overnight costs per kilowatt than single-
unit plants, reflecting their ability to take advantage of redundancies and scale economies
in onsite infrastructure such as wastewater management and environmental controls to
reduce the estimated total per-kilowatt cost of the project.
� Natural Gas: The updated cost estimates for natural gas combined cycle and combustion
turbines generally remained similar to those of AEO2010.
� Solar: The overnight capital costs for solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies
dropped by 10 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The decrease in the cost of
photovoltaics was due to the assumption of larger plant capacity and falling component
costs.
3
� Onshore Wind: Overnight costs for onshore wind increased by about 21 percent relative
to AEO 2010 assumptions. This is based on a specification for a new, stand-alone wind
plant including all owners’ costs and may differ from other reported costs in the literature,
which are not fully characterized and may include sites that are built along side existing
plants (and are thus able to avoid some amount of infrastructure costs).
� Offshore Wind: While offshore wind plants have been built in Europe, there have only
been proposals in the United States, with final permitting only recently issued on the first
of these proposals. The updated costs, some 50 percent higher than AEO 2010 estimates,
are consistent with substantial first-of-a-kind costs that would likely be encountered when
building projects in the United States, which largely lacks the unique infrastructure,
needed to support this type of construction.
� Geothermal: Geothermal costs are highly site-specific, and are represented as such in the
AEO estimates. The updated cost estimate is over 50 percent higher than the same site in
AEO 2010.
� Biomass: Biomass capital costs are largely unchanged from AEO2010. However, the
technology represented by the costs has changed significantly. Prior estimates were for a
highly efficient plant employing gasification and a combined cycle generator; the new
estimate is for a significantly less efficient direct combustion boiler. The lower operating
efficiency (and therefore higher operating cost) for the biomass plant considered in the
updated cost estimate implies a reduced attractiveness of investment in new biomass
generation at an overnight cost similar to that for the more efficient biomass plant
characterized in AEO2010.
While estimates of the current cost of generic electric generation capacity of various types are
one key input to EIA’s analysis of electricity markets, the evolution of the electricity mix in each
of the 22 regions to be modeled in AEO20113 is also sensitive to many other factors, including
the projected evolution of capital costs over the modeling horizon, projected fuel costs, whether
wholesale power markets are regulated or competitive, the existing generation mix, additional
costs associated with environmental control requirements, load growth, and the load shape.
Almost all of these factors can vary by region, as do capacity factors for renewable generation,
operations and maintenance costs associated with individual plants, and cost multipliers applied
to the generic estimates of overnight capital costs outlined in Tables 1 and 2. The next section
provides a brief overview of some of the relevant issues, which are described in more detail in
the description of the Electric Market Module included in the 2010 edition of the documentation
for EIA’s National Energy Modeling System.
Estimates of the overnight capital cost of generic generating technologies are only the starting
point for consideration of the cost of new generating capacity in EIA modeling analyses. EIA
also considers regional variation in construction costs, the structure of wholesale power markets
that affect financing costs, the length of time required to bring each type of plant into service,
and the capacity availability factors for solar and wind generation plants. EIA also accounts for
3
In AEO2010 and prior editions, the continental U.S., excluding Alaska, was divided in 13 regions for purposes of
electricity modeling. The 22 region model that will be used starting with AEO2011 will allow for better
representation of policy boundaries and market structure at the State level.
4
three distinct dynamic forces that drive changes in plant cost over time. One is the projected
relationship between rate of inflation for key drivers of plant costs, such as materials and
construction costs, and the overall economy-wide rate of inflation. A projected economy–wide
inflation rate that exceeds projected inflation for key plant cost drivers results in a projected
decline in real (inflation-adjusted) capital costs. Projected capital costs also reflect projected
technology progress over time. Learning-by-doing, which allows for additional reductions in
projected capital costs as a function of cumulative additions new technologies, has a further
effect on technology costs. See the AEO2010 assumptions and model documentation for more
details.4
Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of
different generating technologies. Levelized cost represents the present value of the total cost of
building and operating a generating plant over an assumed economic life, converted to equal
annual payments and expressed in terms of real dollars to remove the impact of inflation.
Levelized costs, which reflect overnight capital cost, fuel cost, fixed and variable O&M cost, are
a useful indicator of the competitiveness of different generation technologies. For technologies
such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs,
levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation
capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates
significantly affect levelized cost. Thus, while Table 2 shows little change between the updated
capital cost estimates for natural gas combined cycle plants and those used in AEO2010,
improved supply prospects for natural gas that will be incorporated in AEO2011 result in lower
projected prices that in turn lower the levelized cost of gas-fired generation and improve the
attractiveness of operating and adding gas-fired generation technologies.
It is important to note, however, that actual investment decisions are affected by numerous
factors other than levelized costs. The projected utilization rate, which depends on the load
shape and the existing resource mix in an area where additional capacity is needed, is one such
factor. The existing resource mix in a region can directly affect the economic viability of a new
investment through its effect on the economics surrounding the displacement of existing
resources. For example, a wind resource that would primarily back out existing natural gas
generation will generally have a higher value than one that would back out existing coal
generation under fuel price conditions where the variable cost of operating existing gas-fired
plants exceeds that of operating existing coal-fired plants.
A related factor is the capacity value, which depends on both the existing capacity mix and load
characteristics in a region. Since load must be balanced on a continuous basis, units whose
output can be varied to follow demand generally have more value to a system than less flexible
units or those whose operation is tied to the availability of an intermittent resource. Policy-
related factors, such as investment or production tax credits for specified generation sources, can
also impact investment decisions. Finally, although levelized cost calculations are generally
made using an assumed set of capital and operating costs, the inherent uncertainty about future
fuel prices and future policies, may cause plant owners or investors who finance plants to place a
4
Assumptions and model documentation for the 2010 Annual Energy Outlook are available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html.
5
value on portfolio diversification. EIA considers all of these factors in its analyses of
technology choice in the electricity sector.
In sum, while overnight cost estimates are important inputs for EIA modelers and other analysts,
they are not the sole driver of the choice among electric generation technologies. Users
interested in additional details regarding these updated cost estimates should review the
consultant study prepared by R.W. Beck for EIA in Appendix A.
6
Table 1. Updated Estimates of Power Plant Capital and Operating Costs
7
Table 2. Comparison of Updated Plant Costs to AEO2010 Plant Costs
Table II
Overnight Capital Cost ($/kW) Nominal Capacity KW's1
AEO AEO % AEO
AEO 2010
2011 2010 Change 2011
Coal
Advanced PC w/o CCS $2,844 $2,271 25% 1,300,000 600,000
IGCC w/o CCS $3,221 $2,624 23% 1,200,000 550,000
IGCC CCS $5,348 $3,857 39% 600,000 380,000
Natural Gas
Conventional NGCC $978 $1,005 -3% 540,000 250,000
Advanced NGCC $1,003 $989 1% 400,000 400,000
Advanced NGCC with
$2,060 $1,973 4% 340,000 400,000
CCS
Conventional CT $974 $700 39% 85,000 160,000
Advanced CT $665 $662 0% 210,000 230,000
Fuel Cells $6,835 $5,595 22% 10,000 10,000
Nuclear
Nuclear $5,339 $3,902 37% 2,236,000 1,350,000
Renewables
Biomass $3,860 $3,931 -2% 50,000 80,000
Geothermal $4,141 $1,786 132% 50,000 50,000
MSW - Landfill Gas $8,232 $2,655 210% 50,000 30,000
Conventional
$3,078 $2,340 53% 500,000 500,000
Hydropower
Wind $2,438 $2,007 21% 100,000 50,000
Wind Offshore $5,975 $4,021 49% 400,000 100,000
Solar Thermal $4,692 $5,242 -10% 100,000 100,000
Photovoltaic $4,755 $6,303 -25% 150,000 5,000
1
Higher plant capacity reflects the assumption that plants would install multiple units per
site and that savings could could be gained by eliminating redundancies and combining
services.
8
Appendix A
9
EOP III TASK 1606, SUBTASK 3 – REVIEW OF
POWER PLANT COST AND PERFORMANCE
ASSUMPTIONS FOR NEMS
Technology Documentation Report
R. W. Beck, Inc.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Prepared by:
Vincent Hahn, R. W. Beck
John Fix, R. W. Beck
John Schmalz, R. W. Beck
Michael Wennen, R. W. Beck
Evis Couppis, Ph.D., R. W. Beck
Prepared For:
Energy Information Administration
Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting
Alan Beamon
Michael Leff
October 2010
Disclaimer
Certain statements included in this report constitute forward-looking statements. The achievement of certain results
or other expectations contained in such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties
and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements described in the report to be
materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. We do not plan to issue any updates or revisions to the forward-looking statements if
or when our expectations or events, conditions, or circumstances on which such statements are based occur.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Technologies Assessed .......................................................................................... 1-1
i
5. Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) ............................................. 5-1
5.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems..................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Electrical and Control Systems ............................................................................. 5-2
5.3 Off-Site Requirements ........................................................................................... 5-2
5.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 5-3
5.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 5-6
5.6 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................... 5-7
ii
9.3 Off-Site Requirements ........................................................................................... 9-1
9.4 Capital Cost Estimate ............................................................................................ 9-1
9.5 O&M Estimate ...................................................................................................... 9-4
9.6 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................... 9-4
11. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle With CCS (IGCC/CCS) ...................... 11-1
11.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Electrical and Control Systems ........................................................................... 11-1
11.3 Off-Site Requirements ......................................................................................... 11-1
11.4 Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 11-1
11.5 O&M Estimate .................................................................................................... 11-4
11.6 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................. 11-4
iii
13.4 Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 13-3
13.5 O&M Estimate .................................................................................................... 13-7
13.6 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................. 13-8
15. Fuel Cell (FC) Mechanical Equipment and Systems ............................................. 15-1
15.1 Electrical and Control Systems ........................................................................... 15-1
15.2 Off-Site Requirements ......................................................................................... 15-1
15.3 Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 15-2
15.4 O&M Estimate .................................................................................................... 15-5
15.5 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................. 15-6
iv
18. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) ................................................................................ 18-1
18.1 Mechanical Equipment and Systems................................................................... 18-1
18.2 Electrical and Control Systems ........................................................................... 18-2
18.3 Off-Site Requirements ......................................................................................... 18-2
18.4 Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 18-2
18.5 O&M Estimate .................................................................................................... 18-5
18.6 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................. 18-6
v
22.3 Off-Site Requirements ......................................................................................... 22-2
22.4 Capital Cost Estimate .......................................................................................... 22-3
22.5 O&M Estimate .................................................................................................... 22-6
22.6 Environmental Compliance Information ............................................................. 22-6
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
LIST OF TABLES
viii
Table 7-3 – O&M Expenses for AG-NGCC With CCS .............................................................. 7-4
Table 7-4 – Environmental Emissions for AG-NGCC/CCS ....................................................... 7-5
Table 8-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for Conventional CT.................................... 8-2
Table 8-2 – Location-Based Costs for Conventional CT............................................................. 8-4
Table 8-3 – O&M Expenses for Conventional CT ...................................................................... 8-6
Table 8-4 – Environmental Emissions for Conventional CT....................................................... 8-6
Table 9-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for Advanced CT ......................................... 9-2
Table 9-2 – Location-Based Costs for Advanced CT .................................................................. 9-3
Table 9-3 – O&M Expenses for Advanced CT ........................................................................... 9-4
Table 9-4 – Environmental Emissions for Advanced CT ............................................................ 9-5
Table 10-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for IGCC .................................................. 10-4
Table 10-2 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for IGCC .................................................. 10-5
Table 10-3 – Location-Based Costs for IGCC (600,000 kW) ................................................... 10-7
Table 10-4 – Location-Based Costs for IGCC (1,200,000 kW) ................................................ 10-9
Table 10-5 – O&M Expenses for IGCC (600,000 kW) ........................................................... 10-10
Table 10-6 – O&M Expenses for IGCC (1,200,000 kW) ........................................................ 10-11
Table 10-7 – Environmental Emissions for IGCC ................................................................... 10-11
Table 11-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for IGCC/CCS ......................................... 11-2
Table 11-2 – Location-Based Costs for IGCC/CCS .................................................................. 11-3
Table 11-3 – O&M Expenses for IGCC/CCS............................................................................ 11-4
Table 11-4 – Environmental Emissions for IGCC/CCS ............................................................ 11-5
Table 12-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for AN...................................................... 12-4
Table 12-2 – Location-Based Costs for AN .............................................................................. 12-5
Table 12-3 – O&M Expenses for AN ........................................................................................ 12-7
Table 12-4 – Environmental Emissions for AN ........................................................................ 12-7
Table 13-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for BCC ................................................... 13-4
Table 13-2 – Location-Based Costs for BCC ............................................................................ 13-6
Table 13-3 – O&M Expenses for BCC ...................................................................................... 13-7
Table 13-4 – Environmental Emissions for BCC ...................................................................... 13-8
Table 14-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for BBFB ................................................. 14-3
Table 14-2– Location-Based Costs for BBFB ........................................................................... 14-5
Table 14-3 – O&M Expenses for BCC ...................................................................................... 14-6
Table 14-4 – Environmental Emissions for BBFB .................................................................... 14-7
ix
Table 15-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for FC ...................................................... 15-2
Table 15-2 – Location-Based Costs for FC ............................................................................... 15-4
Table 15-3 – O&M Expenses for FC ......................................................................................... 15-5
Table 15-4 – Environmental Emissions for FC ......................................................................... 15-6
Table 16-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for GT ...................................................... 16-3
Table 16-2 – Location-Based Costs for GT ............................................................................... 16-5
Table 16-3 – O&M Expenses for GT ........................................................................................ 16-6
Table 16-4 – Environmental Emissions for GT ......................................................................... 16-7
Table 17-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for GT ...................................................... 17-2
Table 17-2 – Location-Based Costs for GT ............................................................................... 17-4
Table 17-3 – O&M Expenses for Binary ................................................................................... 17-5
Table 17-4 – Environmental Emissions for Binary ................................................................... 17-6
Table 18-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for MSW .................................................. 18-3
Table 18-2 – Location-Based Costs for MSW ........................................................................... 18-4
Table 18-3 – O&M Expenses for MSW .................................................................................... 18-6
Table 18-4 – Environmental Emissions for MSW ..................................................................... 18-6
Table 19-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for HY...................................................... 19-2
Table 19-2 – Location-Based Costs for HY .............................................................................. 19-4
Table 19-3 – O&M Expenses for HY ........................................................................................ 19-5
Table 19-4 – Environmental Emissions for HY ........................................................................ 19-6
Table 20-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for PS ....................................................... 20-2
Table 20-2 – Location-Based Costs for PS ................................................................................ 20-4
Table 20-3 – O&M Expenses for PS ......................................................................................... 20-5
Table 20-4 – Environmental Emissions for PS .......................................................................... 20-6
Table 21-1 – Location-Based Costs for WN.............................................................................. 21-3
Table 21-2 – Location-Based Costs for WN.............................................................................. 21-4
Table 21-3 – O&M Expenses for WN ....................................................................................... 21-6
Table 21-4 – Environmental Emissions for WN........................................................................ 21-6
Table 22-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for WF ..................................................... 22-3
Table 22-2 – Location-Based Costs for WF .............................................................................. 22-5
Table 23-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for SO ...................................................... 23-4
Table 23-2 – Location-Based Costs for SO ............................................................................... 23-6
Table 23-3 – O&M Expenses for SO......................................................................................... 23-7
x
Table 23-4 – Environmental Emissions for SO ......................................................................... 23-8
Table 24-1 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for PV ...................................................... 24-3
Table 24-2 – Base Plant Site Capital Cost Estimate for PV ...................................................... 24-4
Table 24-3 – Location-Based Costs for PV (7 MW) ................................................................. 24-6
Table 24-4 – Location-Based Costs for PV (150 MW) ............................................................. 24-8
Table 24-5 – O&M Expenses for PV Facility (7 MW) ............................................................. 24-9
Table 24-6 – O&M Expenses for PV Facility (150 MW) ......................................................... 24-9
Table 24-7 – Environmental Emissions for PV ....................................................................... 24-10
xi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Alternating Current
AG Advanced Generation
AG Advanced Generation
AG-NGCC Advanced Generation Natural Gas Combined Cycle
AG-NGCC/CCS Advanced Generation Natural Gas Combined Cycle with CCS
AGR Acid Gas Removal
AN Advanced Nuclear
APC Advanced Pulverized Coal Facility
APC/CCS Advanced Pulverized Coal with CCS
ASU Air Separation Unit
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BCC Biomass Combined Cycle
BBFB Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed
BFB Bubbling Fluidized Bed
BOP Balance-of-Plant
BPF Brine Processing Facility
Btu British Thermal Unit
C Carbon
CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration
CFB Circulating Fluidized Bed
C2H6 Ethane
C3H8 Propane
C4H10 n-Butane
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COS Carbonyl Sulfide
CT Combustion Turbine
DC Direct Current
DCS Distributed Control System
DLN Dry Low-NOX Combustion
EIA Energy Information Administration
EMM Electricity Market Module of NEMS
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
�F Degrees Fahrenheit
FC Fuel Cell
FGD Flue Gas Desulfurization
FOM Fixed O&M
Geothermal GT
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSU Generator Step-up Transformer
GT Geothermal
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
xii
HHV High(er) Heating Value
HP High Pressure
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
HY Hydroelectric
Hz Hertz
I&C Instrumentation and Controls
IGCC Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle
IGCC/CCS Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Carbon Capture and Sequestration
IP Intermediate Pressure
kg Kilograms
KJ Kilojoules
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
kV Kilovolt
kVA kilovolt-amperes
lb Pound
LHV Low(er) Heating Value
CLP Low Pressure
MEA Monoethanolamine
MJ Mega joules
MMBtu Million Btu
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MW Megawatt
MWe Megawatts Electric
MWh Megawatt-hour
MVA Mega-volt-amperes
N2 Nitrogen
NEMS National Energy Modeling System
NGCC Natural Gas Combined Cycle
NH3 Ammonia
NOX Oxides of Nitrogen
O2 Oxygen
O&M Operating and Maintenance
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
ppmvd Parts per Million Volume Dry
PS Pumped Storage
psia Pounds per Square Inch Absolute
PV Photovoltaic
PWR Pressurized Water Reactor
RCS Reactor Coolant System
S Sulfur
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
scf Standard Cubic Feet
scm Standard Cubic Meters
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
SNCR Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
xiii
SO Solar Thermal
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SRU Sulfur Recovery Unit
ST Steam Turbine
TGF Turbine Generating Facility
U.S. United States
V Volt
VOM Variable Operating and Maintenance
WF Offshore Wind
WFGD Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization
WN Onshore Wind
WTG Wind Turbine Generator
ZLD Zero Liquid Discharge
xiv
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents R. W. Beck, Inc.’s (“R. W. Beck”) performance and cost assessment of
power generation technologies utilized by the Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) in the
Electricity Market Module (“EMM”) of the National Energy Modeling System (“NEMS”). The
assessment for each of the technologies considered includes the following:
� Overnight construction costs, construction lead times, first year of commercial
application, typical unit size, contingencies, fixed and variable operating costs, and
efficiency (heat rate). The analysis was conducted to ensure that the overnight cost
estimates developed for use in the EMM for electric generating technologies are
consistent in scope, accounting for all costs in the planning and development of a power
plant including the basic interconnection to the grid at the plant site, but excluding
financing costs.
� For emission control technologies, the removal rates for pollutants and other assumptions
were examined.
� Review of the regional multipliers that are used to represent local conditions, such as
labor rates that are included in EMM.
� Review of assumptions regarding how construction costs decline over time due to
technological advancement and “learning by doing.”
� Review of the appropriateness of technology-specific project and process contingency
assumptions (capturing differences between engineering estimates and realized costs for
new technologies).
� Where possible, compare the values used by EIA with those for recently built facilities in
the United States (“U.S.”) or abroad. Where such actual cost estimates do not exist, an
assessment was made between values used by EIA and other analyst estimates, as well as
vendor estimates.
� The key factors expected to drive each technology’s costs.
� Document the source and basis for final recommendations for altering or retaining the
various assumptions.
1-1
TABLE 1-1 – LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR REVIEW
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION COMMENTS
Advanced Pulverized Coal 650 megawatt-electrical (“MWe”) Greenfield Installation
and 1,300 MWe; supercritical; all
advanced pollution control
technologies
Advanced Pulverized Coal with 650 MWe and 1,300 MWe; Greenfield Installation
Carbon Capture and supercritical; all advanced
Sequestration (“CCS”) pollution control technologies,
including CCS technologies
Conventional Natural Gas 540 MWe; F-Class system
Combined Cycle (“NGCC”)
Advanced NGCC 400 MWe; H-Class system
Advanced NGCC with CCS 340 MWe; H-Class system
Conventional Combustion 85 MWe; E-Class turbine
Turbine (“CT”)
Advanced CT 210 MWe; F-Class turbine
Integrated Gasification 600 MWe and 1,200 MWe; F-
Combined Cycle (“IGCC”) Class-syngas system
1-2
2. GENERAL BASIS FOR TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION BASIS
This section specifies the general evaluation basis used for all technologies reviewed herein.
2-1
TABLE 2-1 – REFERENCE COAL SPECIFICATION
Rank Bituminous
Seam Illinois No. 6 (Herrin)
Source Old Ben Mine
Proximate Analysis (weight %) (Note A)
As Received Dry
Moisture 11.12 0.00
Ash 9.70 10.91
Volatile Matter 34.99 39.37
Fixed Carbon 44.19 49.72
Total 100.00 100.00
Sulfur 2.51 2.82
HHV (1), KJ/kg (2) 27,113 30,506
HHV, Btu/lb (3) 11,666 13,126
(4)
LHV , KJ/kg 26,151 29,544
LHV, Btu/lb 11,252 12,712
Ultimate Analysis (weight %)
As Received Dry
Moisture 11.12 0.00
Carbon 63.75 71.72
Hydrogen 4.50 5.06
Nitrogen 1.25 1.41
Chlorine 0.29 0.33
Sulfur 2.51 2.82
Ash 9.70 10.91
Oxygen 6.88 7.75
Total 100.00 100.00
(1) High(er) heating value (“HHV”).
(2) Kilojoules per kilogram (“KJ/kg”).
(3) British thermal units per pound (“Btu/lb”).
(4) Low(er) heating value (“LHV”).
2-2
TABLE 2-2 – NATURAL GAS SPECIFICATION
Component Volume Percentage
Methane CH4 93.9
Ethane C2H6 3.2
Propane C3H8 0.7
n-Butane C4H10 0.4
Carbon Dioxide CO2 1.0
Nitrogen N2 0.8
Total 100.0
LHV HHV
kJ/kg 47.764 52,970
MJ/scm (1) 35 39
Btu/lb 20,552 22,792
Btu/scf (2) 939 1,040
(1) Mega joules per standard cubic meter (“MJ/scm”).
(2) Standard cubic feet (“scf”).
2-3
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE BASIS
The technology assessments considered the emissions rates after implementation of best
available control technology (“BACT”), including sulfur dioxide (“SO2”), oxides of nitrogen
(“NOX”), particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxide (“CO2”). With respect to CCS
technologies, which are not currently considered “proven” or BACT by regulating bodies,
R. W. Beck assumed capture and sequestration technologies that are currently in development
for large-scale deployment, as discussed herein, and at industry expected rates of CO2 removal
(i.e., 90 percent).
2-4
TABLE 2-4 – CT CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS
Conventional CT Advanced CT Conventional NGCC Advanced�� NGCC Advanced�� NGCC With CCS IGCC IGCC With CCS
ISO Capacity Adjusted ISO Capacity Adjusted ISO Capacity Adjusted ISO Capacity Adjusted ISO Capacity Adjusted ISO Capacity Adjusted ISO Capacity Adjusted
Capacity Adjustment Capacity Capacity Adjustment Capacity Capacity Adjustment Capacity Capacity Adjustment Capacity Capacity Adjustment Capacity Capacity Adjustment Capacity Capacity Adjustment Capacity
State City (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW) (MW)
Alaska Anchorage 85 7.58 92.58 210 18.73 229 540 32.27 572 400 35.67 436 340 30.32 370 600 35.85 636 520 46.38 566
Alaska Fairbanks 85 9.97 94.97 210 24.63 235 540 42.43 582 400 46.91 447 340 39.87 380 600 47.14 647 520 60.98 581
Alabama Huntsville 85 �2.12 82.88 210 �5.23 205 540 �9.01 531 400 �9.96 390 340 �8.46 332 600 �10.01 590 520 �12.94 507
Arizona Phoenix 85 �8.33 76.67 210 �20.59 189 540 �35.47 505 400 �39.22 361 340 �33.34 307 600 �39.41 561 520 �50.98 469
Arkansas Little Rock 85 �1.77 83.23 210 �4.37 206 540 �7.53 532 400 �8.32 392 340 �7.07 333 600 �8.36 592 520 �10.82 509
California Los Angeles 85 �1.77 83.23 210 �4.37 206 540 �7.52 532 400 �8.32 392 340 �7.07 333 600 �8.36 592 520 �10.81 509
California Redding 85 �2.52 82.48 210 �6.21 204 540 �10.71 529 400 �11.84 388 340 �10.06 330 600 �11.90 588 520 �15.39 505
California Bakersfield 85 �3.77 81.23 210 �9.30 201 540 �16.03 524 400 �17.72 382 340 �15.06 325 600 �17.81 582 520 �23.03 497
California Sacramento 85 �0.69 84.31 210 �1.71 208 540 �2.95 537 400 �3.26 397 340 �2.78 337 600 �3.28 597 520 �4.24 516
California San Francisco 85 0.83 85.83 210 2.06 212 540 3.54 544 400 3.92 404 340 3.33 343 600 3.94 604 520 5.09 525
Colorado Denver 85 �12.30 72.70 210 �30.40 180 540 �52.37 488 400 �57.90 342 340 �49.22 291 600 �58.19 542 520 �75.27 445
Connecticut Hartford 85 2.97 87.97 210 7.33 217 540 12.63 553 400 13.96 414 340 11.87 352 600 14.03 614 520 18.15 538
Delaware Dover 85 1.22 86.22 210 3.00 213 540 5.17 545 400 5.72 406 340 4.86 345 600 5.75 606 520 7.43 527
District of Columbia Washington 85 2.01 87.01 210 4.96 215 540 8.55 549 400 9.46 409 340 8.04 348 600 9.50 610 520 12.29 532
Florida Tallahassee 85 �3.00 82.00 210 �7.42 203 540 �12.79 527 400 �14.14 386 340 �12.01 328 600 �14.21 586 520 �18.38 502
Florida Tampa 85 �4.78 80.22 210 �11.80 198 540 �20.34 520 400 �22.49 378 340 �19.11 321 600 �22.60 577 520 �29.23 491
Georgia Atlanta 85 �3.66 81.34 210 �9.05 201 540 �15.59 524 400 �17.24 383 340 �14.65 325 600 �17.32 583 520 �22.41 498
Hawaii Honolulu 85 �6.75 78.25 210 �16.66 193 540 �28.71 511 400 �31.74 368 340 �26.98 313 600 �31.90 568 520 �41.26 479
Idaho Boise 85 �5.52 79.48 210 �13.64 196 540 �23.50 517 400 �25.98 374 340 �22.08 318 600 �26.11 574 520 �33.77 486
Illinois Chicago 85 1.76 86.76 210 4.35 214 540 7.49 547 400 8.28 408 340 7.04 347 600 8.33 608 520 10.77 531
Indiana Indianapolis 85 0.20 85.20 210 0.50 211 540 0.87 541 400 0.96 401 340 0.81 341 600 0.96 601 520 1.24 521
Iowa Davenport 85 1.81 86.81 210 4.47 214 540 7.70 548 400 8.51 409 340 7.23 347 600 8.55 609 520 11.06 531
Iowa Waterloo 85 2.02 87.02 210 4.98 215 540 8.58 549 400 9.48 409 340 8.06 348 600 9.53 610 520 12.33 532
Kansas Wichita 85 �2.91 82.09 210 �7.19 203 540 �12.39 528 400 �13.70 386 340 �11.65 328 600 �13.77 586 520 �17.81 502
Kentucky Louisville 85 �0.20 84.80 210 �0.50 210 540 �0.86 539 400 �0.95 399 340 �0.81 339 600 �0.96 599 520 �1.24 519
Louisiana New Orleans 85 �3.26 81.74 210 �8.05 202 540 �13.87 526 400 �15.34 385 340 �13.03 327 600 �15.41 585 520 �19.94 500
Maine Portland 85 4.72 89.72 210 11.66 222 540 20.08 560 400 22.20 422 340 18.87 359 600 22.31 622 520 28.86 549
Maryland Baltimore 85 1.21 86.21 210 2.98 213 540 5.13 545 400 5.67 406 340 4.82 345 600 5.70 606 520 7.38 527
Massachusetts Boston 85 2.92 87.92 210 7.20 217 540 12.41 552 400 13.72 414 340 11.66 352 600 13.79 614 520 17.84 538
Michigan Detroit 85 2.03 87.03 210 5.00 215 540 8.62 549 400 9.53 410 340 8.10 348 600 9.58 610 520 12.39 532
Michigan Grand Rapids 85 1.97 86.97 210 4.87 215 540 8.39 548 400 9.27 409 340 7.88 348 600 9.32 609 520 12.05 532
Minnesota Saint Paul 85 2.00 87.00 210 4.95 215 540 8.52 549 400 9.42 409 340 8.01 348 600 9.47 609 520 12.25 532
Mississippi Jackson 85 �2.95 82.05 210 �7.30 203 540 �12.58 527 400 �13.90 386 340 �11.82 328 600 �13.97 586 520 �18.08 502
Missouri St. Louis 85 �0.40 84.60 210 �0.98 209 540 �1.68 538 400 �1.86 398 340 �1.58 338 600 �1.87 598 520 �2.42 518
Missouri Kansas City 85 �1.23 83.77 210 �3.04 207 540 �5.23 535 400 �5.78 394 340 �4.92 335 600 �5.81 594 520 �7.52 512
Montana Great Falls 85 �6.00 79.00 210 �14.81 195 540 �25.52 514 400 �28.21 372 340 �23.98 316 600 �28.35 572 520 �36.68 483
Nebraska Omaha 85 0.15 85.15 210 0.36 210 540 0.62 541 400 0.68 401 340 0.58 341 600 0.69 601 520 0.89 521
New Hampshire Concord 85 4.18 89.18 210 10.33 220 540 17.79 558 400 19.67 420 340 16.72 357 600 19.77 620 520 25.57 546
New Jersey Newark 85 1.69 86.69 210 4.18 214 540 7.21 547 400 7.97 408 340 6.77 347 600 8.01 608 520 10.36 530
New Mexico Albuquerque 85 �13.95 71.05 210 �34.46 176 540 �59.37 481 400 �65.64 334 340 �55.79 284 600 �65.97 534 520 �85.33 435
New York New York 85 1.69 86.69 210 4.18 214 540 7.21 547 400 7.97 408 340 6.77 347 600 8.01 608 520 10.36 530
New York Syracuse 85 3.06 88.06 210 7.56 218 540 13.03 553 400 14.41 414 340 12.25 352 600 14.48 614 520 18.73 539
Nevada Las Vegas 85 �9.24 75.76 210 �22.82 187 540 �39.31 501 400 �43.46 357 340 �36.95 303 600 �43.68 556 520 �56.50 463
North Carolina Charlotte 85 �2.41 82.59 210 �5.95 204 540 �10.26 530 400 �11.34 389 340 �9.64 330 600 �11.40 589 520 �14.74 505
North Dakota Bismarck 85 1.02 86.02 210 2.53 213 540 4.36 544 400 4.82 405 340 4.09 344 600 4.84 605 520 6.26 526
Ohio Cincinnati 85 1.45 86.45 210 3.58 214 540 6.16 546 400 6.81 407 340 5.79 346 600 6.85 607 520 8.85 529
Oregon Portland 85 2.02 87.02 210 5.00 215 540 8.61 549 400 9.51 410 340 8.09 348 600 9.56 610 520 12.37 532
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 85 1.88 86.88 210 4.65 215 540 8.00 548 400 8.85 409 340 7.52 348 600 8.89 609 520 11.50 532
Pennsylvania Wilkes�Barre 85 1.07 86.07 210 2.64 213 540 4.55 545 400 5.03 405 340 4.27 344 600 5.05 605 520 6.54 527
Rhode Island Providence 85 3.16 88.16 210 7.82 218 540 13.47 553 400 14.89 415 340 12.66 353 600 14.96 615 520 19.36 539
South Carolina Spartanburg 85 �2.32 82.68 210 �5.73 204 540 �9.88 530 400 �10.92 389 340 �9.28 331 600 �10.98 589 520 �14.20 506
South Dakota Rapid City 85 �5.15 79.85 210 �12.72 197 540 �21.91 518 400 �24.22 376 340 �20.59 319 600 �24.34 576 520 �31.49 489
Tennessee Knoxville 85 �2.15 82.85 210 �5.32 205 540 �9.17 531 400 �10.14 390 340 �8.62 331 600 �10.19 590 520 �13.18 507
Texas Houston 85 �3.46 81.54 210 �8.54 201 540 �14.71 525 400 �16.27 384 340 �13.83 326 600 �16.35 584 520 �21.15 499
Utah Salt Lake City 85 �9.73 75.27 210 �24.03 186 540 �41.40 499 400 �45.77 354 340 �38.90 301 600 �46.00 554 520 �59.50 461
Vermont Burlington 85 4.40 89.40 210 10.86 221 540 18.71 559 400 20.68 421 340 17.58 358 600 20.79 621 520 26.89 547
Virginia Alexandria 85 0.27 85.27 210 0.66 211 540 1.14 541 400 1.26 401 340 1.07 341 600 1.26 601 520 1.63 522
Virginia Lynchburg 85 �1.05 83.95 210 �2.59 207 540 �4.47 536 400 �4.94 395 340 �4.20 336 600 �4.96 595 520 �6.42 514
Washington Seattle 85 1.10 86.10 210 2.72 213 540 4.68 545 400 5.18 405 340 4.40 344 600 5.20 605 520 6.73 527
Washington Spokane 85 �2.90 82.10 210 �7.17 203 540 �12.35 528 400 �13.66 386 340 �11.61 328 600 �13.73 586 520 �17.75 502
West Virginia Charleston 85 �1.21 83.79 210 �3.00 207 540 �5.16 535 400 �5.71 394 340 �4.85 335 600 �5.74 594 520 �7.42 513
Wisconsin Green Bay 85 3.51 88.51 210 8.67 219 540 14.94 555 400 16.52 417 340 14.04 354 600 16.60 617 520 21.47 541
Wyoming Cheyenne 85 �13.05 71.95 210 �32.24 178 540 �55.55 484 400 �61.42 339 340 �52.21 288 600 �61.7 538 520 �79.84 440
Puerto Rico Cayey 85 �6.00 79.00 210 �14.83 195 540 �25.56 514 400 �28.25 372 340 �24.02 316 600 �28.40 572 520 �36.73 483
2-5
2.5 TECHNOLOGY SPECIFICATIONS
This section provides the base performance specifications for each technology. Table 2-5
provides the current technology specifications.
2-6
as well as auxiliary equipment such as material handling, fly and bottom ash handling, pumps,
condensers, and balance of plant (“BOP”) equipment such as fire protection, as applicable to a
given technology.
The electrical and I&C supply and installation includes electrical transformers, switchgear,
motor control centers, switchyards, distributed control systems (“DCS”) and instrumentation,
and electrical commodities, such as wire, cable tray, and lighting.
While commodities, project equipment, and site assumptions can vary widely from project-to-
project for a given technology, the Cost Estimates are based upon a cross section of projects.
The project indirect costs include engineering, distributable labor and materials, craft labor
overtime and incentives, scaffolding costs, construction management, and start-up and
commissioning. The fees and contingency include contractor overhead costs, fees and profit, and
construction contingency. Contingency in this category is considered “contractor” contingency,
which would be held by a given contractor to mitigate its risk in the construction of a project.
The owner’s costs include development costs, preliminary feasibility and engineering studies,
environmental studies and permitting, legal fees, project management (including third-party
management), insurance costs, infrastructure interconnection costs (e.g., gas, electricity),
Owner’s Contingency, and property taxes during construction. The electrical interconnection
cost includes an allowance for the plant switchyard and a subsequent interconnection to an
“adjacent” (e.g. within a mile) of the plant, but does not include significant transmission system
upgrades.
2.6.2 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Expenses
O&M expenses consist of non-fuel O&M costs, owner’s expenses, and fuel-related expenses. In
evaluating the non-fuel O&M expenses for use in the EMM of NEMS, we focused on non-fuel
O&M costs associated with the direct operation of the given power plant technology, referred to
here as the “Production Related Non-Fuel O&M Expenses,” to allow for comparison of O&M
costs on the same basis.
Production Related Non-Fuel O&M Expenses include the following categories:
� Fixed O&M (“FOM”)
� Variable O&M (“VOM”)
� Major Maintenance
Presented below is a brief summary below of the expense categories included within the
categories of Fixed O&M, Variable O&M, and Major Maintenance. Further, Sections 3 through
22 provide more specific information related to Production-Related Non-Fuel O&M Expenses
for each technology.
Owner’s expenses, which are not addressed in this report, include expenses paid by plant owners
that are plant specific and can vary significantly between two virtually identical plants in the
same geographic region. For example, the owner’s expenses include, but are not limited to,
property taxes, asset management fees, energy marketing fees, and insurance.
2-7
2.6.2.1 Fixed O&M (FOM)
FOM expenses are those expenses incurred at a power plant that do not vary significantly with
generation and include the following categories:
� Staffing and monthly fees under pertinent operating agreements
� Typical bonuses paid to the given plant operator
� Plant support equipment which consists of equipment rentals and temporary labor
� Plant-related general and administrative expenses (postage, telephone, etc.)
� Routine preventive and predictive maintenance performed during operations
� Maintenance of structures and grounds
� Other fees required for a project to participate in the relevant National Electric Reliability
Council region and be in good standing with the regulatory bodies.
Routine preventive and predictive maintenance expenses do not require an extended plant
shutdown and include the following categories:
� Maintenance of equipment such as water circuits, feed pumps, main steam piping, and
demineralizer systems
� Maintenance of electric plant equipment, which includes service water, DCS, condensate
system, air filters, and plant electrical
� Maintenance of miscellaneous plant equipment such as communication equipment,
instrument and service air, and water supply system
� Plant support equipment which consists of tools, shop supplies and equipment rental, and
safety supplies.
2.6.2.2 Variable O&M (VOM)
VOM expenses are production-related costs which vary with electrical generation and include
the following categories, as applicable to the given power plant technology:
� Raw water
� Waste and wastewater disposal expenses
� Purchase power (which is incurred inversely to operating hours), demand charges and
related utilities
� Chemicals, catalysts and gases
� Ammonia (“NH3”) for selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”), as applicable
� Lubricants
� Consumable materials and supplies.
2.6.2.3 Major Maintenance
Major maintenance expenses generally require an extended outage, are typically undertaken no
more than once per year; and are assumed to vary with electrical generation or the number of
2-8
plant starts based on the given technology and specific original equipment manufacturer
recommendations and requirements. These major maintenance expenses include the following
expense categories:
� Scheduled major overhaul expenses for maintaining the prime mover equipment at a
power plant
� Major maintenance labor
� Major maintenance spares parts costs
� BOP major maintenance, which is major maintenance on the equipment at the given plant
that cannot be accomplished as part of routine maintenance or while the unit is in
commercial operation.
2-9
TABLE 2-5 – TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
2-10
(1) Capacity is net of auxiliary loads.
(2) Heat Rate is on a HHV basis for British thermal units per kilowatt-hour (“Btu/kWh”).
(3) Capital Cost excludes financing-related costs (e.g., fees, interest during construction).
(4) FOM expenses exclude owner's costs (e.g., insurance, property taxes, and asset management fees).
(5) VOM expenses include major maintenance.
(6) Million Btu (“MMBtu”).
(7) Based on high sulfur bituminous fuel. Emission rate could be lower for sub-bituminous fuel.
(8) From greenhouse gas (“GHG”) Reporting Rule for Bituminous Coal.
(9) SO2 emission rates are lower than in the non-capture case to avoid reagent contamination.
(10) Assuming 90 percent capture.
(11) Assuming 3 percent sulfur coal at 12,000 British thermal units per pound (“Btu/lb”) and a 99.5 percent sulfur removal rate.
(12) Assuming 3 percent sulfur coal at 12,000 Btu/lb and a 99.7 percent sulfur removal rate.
(13) Assuming 9 parts per million volume dry (“ppmvd”) corrected to 15 percent O2; simple-cycle E-Class or F-Class engine.
(14) Assuming 2 ppmvd corrected to 15 percent O2 for F-Class engine. Assumes development of SCR for IGCC with CCS.
(15) From GHG Reporting Rule for Pipeline Natural Gas.
(16) Assuming 90 percent capture.
(17) Reported as pounds per MWh and as H2S – actual will vary with resource.
(18) Reported as pounds per MWh – actual will vary with resource.
(19) Based on 30 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 – 5,000 Btu/lb HHV of MSW.
(20) Based on 150 ppmvd at 7 percent O2 - 5,000 Btu/lb HHV of MSW.
2-11
3. ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL (APC)
3-1
FIGURE 3-1 – ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL DESIGN CONFIGURATION
3-2
3.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
The base Cost Estimate for the Advanced Pulverized Coal Facility (“APC”) with a nominal
capacity of 650 MW is $3,167/kilowatt (“kW”) and with a nominal capacity of 1,300 MW is
$2,844/kW. Table 3-1 and Table 3-2 summarize the Cost Estimate categories for the APC
Facility.
TABLE 3-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR APC
Technology: APC
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 650,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,800 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
3-3
TABLE 3-2 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR APC
Technology: APC
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 1,300,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,800 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences,
remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost
differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustment criteria.
Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for
the boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that were
included in outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
3-4
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the APC Facility include
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 1.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the APC Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio; and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 show the APC capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations,
including the difference between the given location and the average location specified for the
Cost Estimate.
TABLE 3-3 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR APC (650,000 KW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 3,200 33.1% 1,058 4,258
Alaska Fairbanks 3,200 32.0% 1,026 4,226
Alabama Huntsville 3,200 -7.5% (239) 2,961
Arizona Phoenix 3,200 -5.2% (166) 3,034
Arkansas Little Rock 3,200 -6.2% (200) 3,000
California Los Angeles 3,200 20.3% 649 3,849
California Redding 3,200 9.8% 314 3,514
California Bakersfield 3,200 9.4% 300 3,500
California Sacramento 3,200 14.4% 462 3,662
California San Francisco 3,200 42.4% 1,356 4,556
Colorado Denver 3,200 -6.1% (194) 3,006
Connecticut Hartford 3,200 26.6% 851 4,051
Delaware Dover 3,200 23.0% 736 3,936
District of Columbia Washington 3,200 39.6% 1,267 4,467
Florida Tallahassee 3,200 -10.9% (349) 2,851
Florida Tampa 3,200 -4.9% (156) 3,044
Georgia Atlanta 3,200 -8.1% (260) 2,940
Hawaii Honolulu 3,200 69.0% 2,210 5,410
Idaho Boise 3,200 -3.7% (118) 3,082
Illinois Chicago 3,200 19.8% 635 3,835
Indiana Indianapolis 3,200 3.2% 102 3,302
3-5
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Iowa Davenport 3,200 -1.6% (50) 3,150
Iowa Waterloo 3,200 -9.0% (288) 2,912
Kansas Wichita 3,200 -7.5% (241) 2,959
Kentucky Louisville 3,200 -5.6% (178) 3,022
Louisiana New Orleans 3,200 -11.2% (359) 2,841
Maine Portland 3,200 -1.5% (47) 3,153
Maryland Baltimore 3,200 4.6% 148 3,348
Massachusetts Boston 3,200 35.3% 1,128 4,328
Michigan Detroit 3,200 3.8% 123 3,323
Michigan Grand Rapids 3,200 -7.9% (251) 2,949
Minnesota St. Paul 3,200 3.9% 125 3,325
Mississippi Jackson 3,200 -7.4% (238) 2,962
Missouri St. Louis 3,200 7.2% 231 3,431
Missouri Kansas City 3,200 3.4% 109 3,309
Montana Great Falls 3,200 -4.3% (137) 3,063
Nebraska Omaha 3,200 -3.5% (113) 3,087
New Hampshire Concord 3,200 -1.6% (52) 3,148
New Jersey Newark 3,200 15.5% 495 3,695
New Mexico Albuquerque 3,200 -3.9% (125) 3,075
New York New York 3,200 32.6% 1,044 4,244
New York Syracuse 3,200 10.7% 342 3,542
Nevada Las Vegas 3,200 9.2% 295 3,495
North Carolina Charlotte 3,200 -11.2% (360) 2,840
North Dakota Bismarck 3,200 -8.0% (255) 2,945
Ohio Cincinnati 3,200 0.3% 11 3,211
Oregon Portland 3,200 9.5% 305 3,505
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 3,200 12.1% 387 3,587
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 3,200 -3.5% (112) 3,088
Rhode Island Providence 3,200 4.1% 132 3,332
South Carolina Spartanburg 3,200 -11.8% (377) 2,823
South Dakota Rapid City 3,200 -10.7% (342) 2,858
Tennessee Knoxville 3,200 -8.9% (286) 2,914
Texas Houston 3,200 -9.5% (304) 2,896
Utah Salt Lake City 3,200 -3.1% (98) 3,102
Vermont Burlington 3,200 -5.3% (169) 3,031
Virginia Alexandria 3,200 9.7% 310 3,510
Virginia Lynchburg 3,200 -2.0% (62) 3,138
Washington Seattle 3,200 12.8% 409 3,609
Washington Spokane 3,200 -2.3% (74) 3,126
West Virginia Charleston 3,200 -1.8% (58) 3,142
Wisconsin Green Bay 3,200 0.5% 16 3,216
Wyoming Cheyenne 3,200 3.9% 125 3,325
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
3-6
TABLE 3-4 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR APC (1,300,000 KW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 2,850 36.5% 1,040 3,890
Alaska Fairbanks 2,850 35.3% 1,006 3,856
Alabama Huntsville 2,850 -8.2% (233) 2,617
Arizona Phoenix 2,850 -5.7% (161) 2,689
Arkansas Little Rock 2,850 -5.9% (169) 2,681
California Los Angeles 2,850 22.4% 638 3,488
California Redding 2,850 10.7% 306 3,156
California Bakersfield 2,850 10.3% 293 3,143
California Sacramento 2,850 15.7% 447 3,297
California San Francisco 2,850 46.7% 1,330 4,180
Colorado Denver 2,850 -6.6% (188) 2,662
Connecticut Hartford 2,850 29.4% 838 3,688
Delaware Dover 2,850 25.5% 728 3,578
District of Columbia Washington 2,850 44.4% 1,265 4,115
Florida Tallahassee 2,850 -11.9% (339) 2,511
Florida Tampa 2,850 -5.4% (154) 2,696
Georgia Atlanta 2,850 -8.9% (253) 2,597
Hawaii Honolulu 0 0 0 0
Idaho Boise 2,850 -4.0% (115) 2,735
Illinois Chicago 2,850 21.3% 606 3,456
Indiana Indianapolis 2,850 3.5% 99 2,949
Iowa Davenport 2,850 -1.8% (53) 2,797
Iowa Waterloo 2,850 -9.8% (280) 2,570
Kansas Wichita 2,850 -7.3% (209) 2,641
Kentucky Louisville 2,850 -6.1% (173) 2,677
Louisiana New Orleans 2,850 -12.2% (348) 2,502
Maine Portland 2,850 -0.6% (16) 2,834
Maryland Baltimore 2,850 5.3% 150 3,000
Massachusetts Boston 2,850 38.7% 1,103 3,953
Michigan Detroit 2,850 4.0% 114 2,964
Michigan Grand Rapids 2,850 -8.6% (244) 2,606
Minnesota St. Paul 2,850 4.1% 116 2,966
Mississippi Jackson 2,850 -8.1% (231) 2,619
Missouri St. Louis 2,850 7.7% 221 3,071
Missouri Kansas City 2,850 3.5% 101 2,951
Montana Great Falls 2,850 -4.7% (133) 2,717
Nebraska Omaha 2,850 -3.9% (111) 2,739
New Hampshire Concord 2,850 -1.8% (52) 2,798
New Jersey Newark 2,850 16.4% 467 3,317
New Mexico Albuquerque 2,850 -4.3% (122) 2,728
New York New York 2,850 34.8% 992 3,842
New York Syracuse 2,850 12.0% 341 3,191
Nevada Las Vegas 2,850 9.9% 282 3,132
North Carolina Charlotte 2,850 -10.4% (296) 2,554
North Dakota Bismarck 2,850 -8.7% (248) 2,602
Ohio Cincinnati 2,850 0.5% 13 2,863
Oregon Portland 2,850 10.4% 297 3,147
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,850 12.9% 366 3,216
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,850 -3.8% (109) 2,741
3-7
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Rhode Island Providence 2,850 4.3% 123 2,973
South Carolina Spartanburg 2,850 -12.7% (363) 2,487
South Dakota Rapid City 2,850 -11.6% (331) 2,519
Tennessee Knoxville 2,850 -9.7% (276) 2,574
Texas Houston 2,850 -10.3% (295) 2,555
Utah Salt Lake City 2,850 -3.3% (93) 2,757
Vermont Burlington 2,850 -5.8% (164) 2,686
Virginia Alexandria 2,850 10.9% 310 3,160
Virginia Lynchburg 2,850 -2.0% (57) 2,793
Washington Seattle 2,850 13.9% 397 3,247
Washington Spokane 2,850 -2.6% (73) 2,777
West Virginia Charleston 2,850 -2.1% (59) 2,791
Wisconsin Green Bay 2,850 0.6% 16 2,866
Wyoming Cheyenne 2,850 4.6% 131 2,981
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
3-8
TABLE 3-7 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR APC
Technology: APC
NOX 0.06 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0.1 lb/MMBtu
CO2 206 lb/MMBtu
3-9
4. ADVANCED PULVERIZED COAL WITH CCS (APC/CCS)
4-1
FIGURE 4-2 – APC/CCS FACILITY DIAGRAM
4-2
TABLE 4-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR APC/CCS
Technology: APC/CCS
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 650,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 12,000 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
TABLE 4-2 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR APC/CCS
Technology: APC/CCS
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 1,300,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 12,000 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences,
remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost
differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustment criteria. The
4-3
methodology used for the APC/CCS Facility is the same as that discussed in Section 3.4 for the
APC Facility (without CCS).
Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 show the APC capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations,
including the difference between the given location and the average location specified for the
Cost Estimate.
TABLE 4-3– LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR APC/CCS FACILITY (650,000 KW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 5,100 32.2% 1,643 6,743
Alaska Fairbanks 5,100 31.4% 1,602 6,702
Alabama Huntsville 5,100 -8.0% (409) 4,691
Arizona Phoenix 5,100 -5.7% (289) 4,811
Arkansas Little Rock 5,100 -6.7% (342) 4,797
California Los Angeles 5,100 19.6% 1,000 6,100
California Redding 5,100 9.4% 481 5,581
California Bakersfield 5,100 9.0% 458 5,558
California Sacramento 5,100 14.4% 734 5,834
California San Francisco 5,100 41.6% 2,124 7,224
Colorado Denver 5,100 -6.6% (335) 4,765
Connecticut Hartford 5,100 25.6% 1,306 6,406
Delaware Dover 5,100 21.9% 1,116 6,216
District of Columbia Washington 5,100 37.0% 1,888 6,988
Florida Tallahassee 5,100 -11.6% (591) 4,509
Florida Tampa 5,100 -5.1% (262) 4,838
Georgia Atlanta 5,100 -8.7% (445) 4,655
Hawaii Honolulu 5,100 65.6% 3,347 8,447
Idaho Boise 5,100 -4.1% (211) 4,889
Illinois Chicago 5,100 20.7% 1,055 6,155
Indiana Indianapolis 5,100 2.8% 141 5,241
Iowa Davenport 5,100 -1.7% (85) 5,015
Iowa Waterloo 5,100 -9.6% (491) 4,609
Kansas Wichita 5,100 -8.1% (411) 4,728
Kentucky Louisville 5,100 -6.1% (309) 4,791
Louisiana New Orleans 5,100 -11.9% (608) 4,492
Maine Portland 5,100 -2.2% (111) 5,028
Maryland Baltimore 5,100 3.8% 195 5,295
Massachusetts Boston 5,100 34.9% 1,779 6,879
Michigan Detroit 5,100 4.0% 204 5,304
Michigan Grand Rapids 5,100 -8.4% (428) 4,672
Minnesota St. Paul 5,100 4.0% 206 5,306
Mississippi Jackson 5,100 -8.0% (406) 4,694
Missouri St. Louis 5,100 7.2% 366 5,466
4-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Missouri Kansas City 5,100 3.4% 174 5,274
Montana Great Falls 5,100 -4.8% (244) 4,856
Nebraska Omaha 5,100 -3.9% (197) 4,903
New Hampshire Concord 5,100 -2.0% (100) 5,000
New Jersey Newark 5,100 16.4% 837 5,937
New Mexico Albuquerque 5,100 -4.4% (222) 4,878
New York New York 5,100 34.7% 1,768 6,868
New York Syracuse 5,100 8.5% 433 5,533
Nevada Las Vegas 5,100 7.5% 382 5,482
North Carolina Charlotte 5,100 -12.0% (612) 4,566
North Dakota Bismarck 5,100 -8.5% (434) 4,666
Ohio Cincinnati 5,100 -0.3% (13) 5,087
Oregon Portland 5,100 9.1% 466 5,566
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,100 12.7% 649 5,749
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,100 -3.9% (201) 4,899
Rhode Island Providence 5,100 4.2% 214 5,314
South Carolina Spartanburg 5,100 -12.7% (649) 4,451
South Dakota Rapid City 5,100 -11.4% (583) 4,517
Tennessee Knoxville 5,100 -9.6% (492) 4,608
Texas Houston 5,100 -10.2% (518) 4,582
Utah Salt Lake City 5,100 -3.8% (194) 4,906
Vermont Burlington 5,100 -5.9% (299) 4,801
Virginia Alexandria 5,100 8.7% 443 5,543
Virginia Lynchburg 5,100 -2.7% (138) 4,962
Washington Seattle 5,100 12.6% 644 5,744
Washington Spokane 5,100 -2.7% (136) 4,964
West Virginia Charleston 5,100 -2.0% (103) 4,997
Wisconsin Green Bay 5,100 0.0% 0 5,100
Wyoming Cheyenne 5,100 1.4% 74 5,174
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
4-5
TABLE 4-4 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR APC/CCS FACILITY (1,300,000 KW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 4,580 35.2% 1,610 6,190
Alaska Fairbanks 4,580 34.2% 1,565 6,145
Alabama Huntsville 4,580 -8.3% (380) 4,200
Arizona Phoenix 4,580 -5.8% (266) 4,314
Arkansas Little Rock 4,580 -6.1% (278) 4,302
California Los Angeles 4,580 21.5% 985 5,565
California Redding 4,580 10.4% 475 5,055
California Bakersfield 4,580 9.9% 453 5,033
California Sacramento 4,580 15.5% 710 5,290
California San Francisco 4,580 45.2% 2,071 6,651
Colorado Denver 4,580 -6.7% (309) 4,271
Connecticut Hartford 4,580 28.1% 1,288 5,868
Delaware Dover 4,580 24.2% 1,109 5,689
District of Columbia Washington 4,580 41.4% 1,895 6,475
Florida Tallahassee 4,580 -12.1% (552) 4,028
Florida Tampa 4,580 -5.4% (245) 4,335
Georgia Atlanta 4,580 -9.0% (413) 4,167
Hawaii Honolulu 0 0 0 0
Idaho Boise 4,580 -4.2% (191) 4,389
Illinois Chicago 4,580 21.7% 995 5,575
Indiana Indianapolis 4,580 3.2% 148 4,728
Iowa Davenport 4,580 -1.7% (79) 4,501
Iowa Waterloo 4,580 -10.0% (457) 4,123
Kansas Wichita 4,580 -7.5% (343) 4,237
Kentucky Louisville 4,580 -6.2% (284) 4,296
Louisiana New Orleans 4,580 -12.4% (567) 4,013
Maine Portland 4,580 -1.1% (48) 4,532
Maryland Baltimore 4,580 4.6% 211 4,791
Massachusetts Boston 4,580 37.7% 1,728 6,308
Michigan Detroit 4,580 4.2% 193 4,773
Michigan Grand Rapids 4,580 -8.7% (398) 4,182
Minnesota St. Paul 4,580 4.3% 195 4,775
Mississippi Jackson 4,580 -8.2% (377) 4,203
Missouri St. Louis 4,580 7.7% 354 4,934
Missouri Kansas City 4,580 3.7% 168 4,748
Montana Great Falls 4,580 -4.8% (222) 4,358
Nebraska Omaha 4,580 -3.9% (180) 4,400
New Hampshire Concord 4,580 -1.9% (87) 4,493
New Jersey Newark 4,580 17.1% 781 5,361
4-6
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 4,580 -4.4% (202) 4,378
New York New York 4,580 36.0% 1,650 6,230
New York Syracuse 4,580 9.7% 442 5,022
Nevada Las Vegas 4,580 7.9% 361 4,941
North Carolina Charlotte 4,580 -10.7% (492) 4,088
North Dakota Bismarck 4,580 -8.8% (404) 4,176
Ohio Cincinnati 4,580 0.1% 4 4,584
Oregon Portland 4,580 10.1% 461 5,041
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,580 13.3% 609 5,189
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 4,580 -4.0% (182) 4,398
Rhode Island Providence 4,580 4.5% 205 4,785
South Carolina Spartanburg 4,580 -13.1% (600) 3,980
South Dakota Rapid City 4,580 -11.8% (542) 4,038
Tennessee Knoxville 4,580 -9.9% (455) 4,125
Texas Houston 4,580 -10.5% (482) 4,098
Utah Salt Lake City 4,580 -3.6% (167) 4,413
Vermont Burlington 4,580 -6.0% (273) 4,307
Virginia Alexandria 4,580 9.9% 455 5,035
Virginia Lynchburg 4,580 -2.4% (112) 4,468
Washington Seattle 4,580 13.7% 626 5,206
Washington Spokane 4,580 -2.6% (121) 4,459
West Virginia Charleston 4,580 -2.0% (93) 4,487
Wisconsin Green Bay 4,580 0.3% 14 4,594
Wyoming Cheyenne 4,580 2.2% 102 4,682
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
4-7
TABLE 4-6 – O&M EXPENSES FOR APC/CCS (1,300,000 KW)
Technology: APC/CCS
Fixed O&M Expense $63.21/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $9.05/MWh
4-8
5. CONVENTIONAL NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE (NGCC)
5.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
The Conventional NGCC produces 540 MW of net electricity. The facility utilizes two natural
gas-fueled F-class CTs and associated electric generators, two supplemental-fired heat recovery
steam generators (“HRSG”), and one condensing ST and associated electric generator operating
in combined-cycle mode. Each CT is designed to produce nominally 172 MW and includes a
dry-low NOX (“DLN”) combustion system and a hydrogen-cooled electric generator. The two
triple-pressure HRSGs include integrated deaerators, SCRs, oxidation catalyst for the control of
carbon monoxide (“CO”), and supplemental duct firing with associated combustion
management. The ST is a single-reheat condensing ST designed for variable pressure operation,
designed to produce an additional 210 MW. The ST exhaust is cooled in a closed-loop
condenser system with a mechanical draft cooling tower. The CTs are equipped with inlet
evaporative coolers to reduce the temperature of the turbine inlet air to increase summer output.
The Conventional NGCC plant also includes a raw water treatment system consisting of
clarifiers and filters and a turbine hall, in which the CTs, ST, and HRSGs are enclosed to avoid
freezing during periods of cold ambient temperatures. Figure 5-1 presents the Conventional
NGCC process flow diagram.
5-1
FIGURE 5-1 – CONVENTIONAL NGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION
5-2
uses a water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the
dissolved solids from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for HRSG makeup.
Wastewater is sent to a municipal wastewater system. Further, the electrical interconnection
from the Conventional NGCC on-site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an adjacent
utility substation.
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
5-3
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, air-cooled condensers
compared to cooling towers, seismic design differences, zero-water discharge issues, local
technical enhancements (e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in urban
siting), remote location issues, urban – high density population issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with these 10 adjustments.
Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for
the boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that were
included in outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
The potential locations relating to the use of air-cooled condensers in place of mechanical draft
wet cooling towers were identified as Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. These locations are identified as those where conservation of
water, notwithstanding supply, has been and/or is becoming a significant issue in plant
permitting/siting.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The potential locations relating to the need of zero-water discharge were identified as Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. Similar to water usage
discussed above in this section on Conventional NGCC, wastewater treatment and disposal is
considered a critical permitting/siting issue in these areas.
The locations with local technical enhancements include California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These areas are places where noise, visual impacts, and
other technical enhancements generally need to be made by a project developer or utility to
comply with the applicable permitting/siting requirements.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Conventional NGCC include
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1., taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the Conventional NGCC Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
5-4
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 5-2 presents the Conventional NGCC capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant
locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location specified
for the Cost Estimate.
TABLE 5-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR CONVENTIONAL NGCC
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 980 33.3% 326 1,306
Alaska Fairbanks 980 38.2% 374 1,354
Alabama Huntsville 980 -8.6% (84) 896
Arizona Phoenix 980 2.6% 25 1,005
Arkansas Little Rock 980 -7.5% (73) 912
California Los Angeles 980 29.0% 284 1,264
California Redding 980 13.5% 132 1,112
California Bakersfield 980 15.8% 154 1,134
California Sacramento 980 20.5% 200 1,180
California San Francisco 980 46.1% 452 1,432
Colorado Denver 980 2.1% 21 1,001
Connecticut Hartford 980 27.9% 274 1,254
Delaware Dover 980 26.2% 256 1,236
District of Columbia Washington 980 33.3% 326 1,306
Florida Tallahassee 980 -11.6% (113) 867
Florida Tampa 980 -6.0% (58) 922
Georgia Atlanta 980 -6.6% (64) 916
Hawaii Honolulu 980 50.2% 492 1,472
Idaho Boise 980 -3.9% (38) 942
Illinois Chicago 980 16.7% 163 1,143
Indiana Indianapolis 980 0.9% 9 989
Iowa Davenport 980 0.5% 5 985
Iowa Waterloo 980 -6.4% (63) 917
Kansas Wichita 980 -5.0% (49) 936
Kentucky Louisville 980 -5.4% (53) 927
Louisiana New Orleans 980 -5.2% (51) 929
Maine Portland 980 -3.4% (33) 952
Maryland Baltimore 980 20.4% 200 1,180
Massachusetts Boston 980 40.0% 392 1,372
Michigan Detroit 980 5.3% 52 1,032
5-5
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Michigan Grand Rapids 980 -5.3% (52) 928
Minnesota St. Paul 980 4.5% 44 1,024
Mississippi Jackson 980 -8.6% (84) 896
Missouri St. Louis 980 5.6% 55 1,035
Missouri Kansas City 980 2.7% 27 1,007
Montana Great Falls 980 -2.4% (24) 956
Nebraska Omaha 980 -1.5% (15) 965
New Hampshire Concord 980 7.3% 72 1,052
New Jersey Newark 980 22.1% 217 1,197
New Mexico Albuquerque 980 -2.4% (24) 956
New York New York 980 68.4% 670 1,650
New York Syracuse 980 16.3% 160 1,140
Nevada Las Vegas 980 6.2% 61 1,041
North Carolina Charlotte 980 -10.5% (102) 888
North Dakota Bismarck 980 -5.4% (53) 927
Ohio Cincinnati 980 -1.7% (17) 963
Oregon Portland 980 13.2% 130 1,110
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 980 26.1% 255 1,235
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 980 -1.7% (17) 963
Rhode Island Providence 980 22.0% 215 1,195
South Carolina Spartanburg 980 -12.8% (126) 854
South Dakota Rapid City 980 -8.0% (78) 902
Tennessee Knoxville 980 -8.5% (84) 896
Texas Houston 980 -8.8% (87) 893
Utah Salt Lake City 980 -4.0% (39) 941
Vermont Burlington 980 -0.1% (1) 979
Virginia Alexandria 980 16.0% 157 1,137
Virginia Lynchburg 980 -5.8% (57) 923
Washington Seattle 980 7.0% 68 1,048
Washington Spokane 980 -2.6% (25) 955
West Virginia Charleston 980 0.1% 1 981
Wisconsin Green Bay 980 -1.3% (13) 967
Wyoming Cheyenne 980 -0.5% (4) 976
Puerto Rico Cayey 980 10.9% 106 1,086
5-6
NGCC Facility occur no less frequently than 24,000 operating hour intervals. Table 5-3 presents
the O&M expenses for the Conventional NGCC Facility.
TABLE 5-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR CONVENTIONAL NGCC
Technology: Conventional NGCC
Fixed O&M Expense $14.39/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $3.43/MWh
5-7
6. ADVANCED GENERATION NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE (AG-NGCC)
6.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
The Advanced Generation (“AG”)-NGCC design is the same as the Conventional NGCC, except
an H-class CT is utilized in lieu of F-class, and there is only one CT/HRSG supporting the ST
included. Since the H-class CT design employees steam cooling of both stationary and rotational
hot parts, the HRSG systems and the ST are both considered “advanced” designs, as compared to
the Conventional NGCC. The net output of the AG-NGCC is 400 MW. Figure 6-1 presents the
AG-NGCC process flow diagram.
FIGURE 6-1 – AG-NGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION
6-1
TABLE 6-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR AG-NGCC
Technology: AG-NGCC
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 400,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 6,430 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
The locational adjustments for the AG-NGCC Facility similar to those made for the
Conventional NGCC Facility.
Table 6-2 presents the AG-NGCC Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant
locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location specified
for the Cost Estimate.
6-2
TABLE 6-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR AG-NGCC
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 1,005 32.4% 325 1,330
Alaska Fairbanks 1,005 37.2% 374 1,379
Alabama Huntsville 1,005 -8.3% (84) 921
Arizona Phoenix 1,005 2.6% 26 1,031
Arkansas Little Rock 1,005 -6.7% (67) 938
California Los Angeles 1,005 28.2% 283 1,288
California Redding 1,005 13.1% 132 1,137
California Bakersfield 1,005 15.4% 154 1,159
California Sacramento 1,005 19.9% 200 1,205
California San Francisco 1,005 44.9% 451 1,456
Colorado Denver 1,005 2.1% 21 1,026
Connecticut Hartford 1,005 27.2% 273 1,278
Delaware Dover 1,005 25.5% 256 1,261
District of Columbia Washington 1,005 32.5% 326 1,331
Florida Tallahassee 1,005 -11.2% (113) 892
Florida Tampa 1,005 -5.8% (58) 947
Georgia Atlanta 1,005 -6.3% (64) 941
Hawaii Honolulu 1,005 48.9% 492 1,497
Idaho Boise 1,005 -3.7% (38) 967
Illinois Chicago 1,005 16.1% 162 1,167
Indiana Indianapolis 1,005 0.9% 9 1,014
Iowa Davenport 1,005 0.5% 5 1,010
Iowa Waterloo 1,005 -6.2% (62) 943
Kansas Wichita 1,005 -4.3% (43) 962
Kentucky Louisville 1,005 -5.2% (52) 953
Louisiana New Orleans 1,005 -5.0% (50) 955
Maine Portland 1,005 -2.7% (27) 978
Maryland Baltimore 1,005 19.9% 200 1,205
Massachusetts Boston 1,005 38.9% 391 1,396
Michigan Detroit 1,005 5.2% 52 1,057
Michigan Grand Rapids 1,005 -5.1% (51) 954
Minnesota St. Paul 1,005 4.4% 44 1,049
Mississippi Jackson 1,005 -8.3% (83) 922
Missouri St. Louis 1,005 5.4% 54 1,059
Missouri Kansas City 1,005 2.6% 26 1,031
Montana Great Falls 1,005 -2.3% (24) 981
Nebraska Omaha 1,005 -1.4% (14) 991
New Hampshire Concord 1,005 7.2% 72 1,077
New Jersey Newark 1,005 21.4% 215 1,220
New Mexico Albuquerque 1,005 -2.3% (23) 982
6-3
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 1,005 66.4% 667 1,672
New York Syracuse 1,005 15.9% 160 1,165
Nevada Las Vegas 1,005 6.0% 61 1,066
North Carolina Charlotte 1,005 -9.1% (91) 914
North Dakota Bismarck 1,005 -5.2% (52) 953
Ohio Cincinnati 1,005 -1.6% (16) 989
Oregon Portland 1,005 12.9% 130 1,135
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 1,005 25.3% 254 1,259
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 1,005 -1.6% (16) 989
Rhode Island Providence 1,005 21.4% 215 1,220
South Carolina Spartanburg 1,005 -12.4% (125) 880
South Dakota Rapid City 1,005 -7.7% (77) 928
Tennessee Knoxville 1,005 -8.2% (83) 922
Texas Houston 1,005 -8.5% (86) 919
Utah Salt Lake City 1,005 -3.8% (38) 967
Vermont Burlington 1,005 0.0% (0) 1,005
Virginia Alexandria 1,005 15.6% 157 1,162
Virginia Lynchburg 1,005 -5.6% (56) 949
Washington Seattle 1,005 6.8% 68 1,073
Washington Spokane 1,005 -2.5% (25) 980
West Virginia Charleston 1,005 0.1% 1 1,006
Wisconsin Green Bay 1,005 -1.3% (13) 992
Wyoming Cheyenne 1,005 -0.4% (4) 1,001
Puerto Rico Cayey 1,005 10.6% 107 1,112
6-4
TABLE 6-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR AG-NGCC
Technology: AG-NGCC
NOX 0.0075 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu
CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
6-5
7. ADVANCED GENERATION NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE WITH CCS
(AG-NGCC/CCS)
7.1 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
The plant configuration for the AG-NGCC/CCS Facility is the same as the AG-NGCC Facility
with the exception that an amine system based on MEA as the solvent is included for CO2
capture from the flue gas. The captured CO2 is compressed to approximately 2,000 psia for
injection into a pipeline at the plant fence line. Figure 7-1 presents the AG-NGCC with CCS
process flow diagram.
FIGURE 7-1 – AG-NGCC WITH CCS DESIGN CONFIGURATION
7-1
TABLE 7-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR AG-NGCC/CCS
COST
Technology: AG-NGCC/CCS
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 340,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 7,525 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
The locational adjustments for the AG-NGCC/CCS Facility are similar to those made for the
Conventional NGCC Facility, described in Section 5.4.
Table 7-2 presents the AG-NGCC/CCS Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant
locations, including the difference between the given location and the average location specified
for the Cost Estimate.
7-2
TABLE 7-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR AG-NGCC/CCS
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 2,060 20.8% 428 2,488
Alaska Fairbanks 2,060 23.7% 488 2,548
Alabama Huntsville 2,060 -8.5% (174) 1,886
Arizona Phoenix 2,060 -2.3% (47) 2,013
Arkansas Little Rock 2,060 -7.0% (143) 1,917
California Los Angeles 2,060 16.1% 331 2,391
California Redding 2,060 7.4% 152 2,212
California Bakersfield 2,060 8.2% 169 2,229
California Sacramento 2,060 13.3% 274 2,334
California San Francisco 2,060 29.8% 615 2,675
Colorado Denver 2,060 -2.9% (60) 2,000
Connecticut Hartford 2,060 15.9% 328 2,388
Delaware Dover 2,060 13.5% 278 2,338
District of Columbia Washington 2,060 14.8% 305 2,365
Florida Tallahassee 2,060 -11.4% (234) 1,826
Florida Tampa 2,060 -5.3% (108) 1,952
Georgia Atlanta 2,060 -7.9% (162) 1,898
Hawaii Honolulu 2,060 26.8% 551 2,611
Idaho Boise 2,060 -4.9% (100) 1,960
Illinois Chicago 2,060 16.9% 348 2,408
Indiana Indianapolis 2,060 -0.5% (11) 2,049
Iowa Davenport 2,060 -0.6% (13) 2,047
Iowa Waterloo 2,060 -8.2% (168) 1,892
Kansas Wichita 2,060 -6.4% (132) 1,928
Kentucky Louisville 2,060 -6.2% (127) 1,933
Louisiana New Orleans 2,060 -8.5% (175) 1,885
Maine Portland 2,060 -4.9% (102) 1,958
Maryland Baltimore 2,060 7.3% 150 2,210
Massachusetts Boston 2,060 26.6% 547 2,607
Michigan Detroit 2,060 4.3% 88 2,148
Michigan Grand Rapids 2,060 -7.0% (144) 1,916
Minnesota St. Paul 2,060 3.7% 76 2,136
Mississippi Jackson 2,060 -8.4% (173) 1,887
Missouri St. Louis 2,060 4.4% 91 2,151
Missouri Kansas City 2,060 2.3% 47 2,107
Montana Great Falls 2,060 -4.5% (93) 1,967
Nebraska Omaha 2,060 -3.2% (65) 1,995
New Hampshire Concord 2,060 1.6% 34 2,094
New Jersey Newark 2,060 18.8% 388 2,448
New Mexico Albuquerque 2,060 -4.2% (86) 1,974
7-3
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 2,060 50.1% 1,032 3,092
New York Syracuse 2,060 6.4% 133 2,193
Nevada Las Vegas 2,060 6.1% 126 2,186
North Carolina Charlotte 2,060 -10.8% (223) 1,837
North Dakota Bismarck 2,060 -7.1% (146) 1,914
Ohio Cincinnati 2,060 -3.4% (70) 1,990
Oregon Portland 2,060 7.1% 146 2,206
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,060 18.3% 378 2,438
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,060 -3.7% (77) 1,983
Rhode Island Providence 2,060 11.9% 244 2,304
South Carolina Spartanburg 2,060 -13.4% (275) 1,785
South Dakota Rapid City 2,060 -9.8% (203) 1,857
Tennessee Knoxville 2,060 -9.6% (197) 1,863
Texas Houston 2,060 -9.6% (198) 1,862
Utah Salt Lake City 2,060 -5.9% (123) 1,937
Vermont Burlington 2,060 -4.0% (81) 1,979
Virginia Alexandria 2,060 5.7% 118 2,178
Virginia Lynchburg 2,060 -6.6% (137) 1,923
Washington Seattle 2,060 6.0% 123 2,183
Washington Spokane 2,060 -3.5% (71) 1,989
West Virginia Charleston 2,060 -1.4% (30) 2,030
Wisconsin Green Bay 2,060 -2.7% (55) 2,005
Wyoming Cheyenne 2,060 -4.5% (92) 1,968
Puerto Rico Cayey 2,060 1.7% 34 2,094
7-4
TABLE 7-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR AG-NGCC/CCS
Technology: AG-NGCC/CCS
NOX 0.0075 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu
CO2 12 lb/MMBtu
7-5
8. CONVENTIONAL COMBUSTION TURBINE (CT)
8-1
8.4 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
The base Cost Estimate for the Conventional CT Facility with a nominal capacity of 85 MW is
$975/kW. Table 8-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the Conventional CT Facility.
TABLE 8-1 – BASE PLANT SITE
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR CONVENTIONAL CT
Technology: Conventional CT
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 85,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 10,850 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences,
local technical enhancements (e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in
urban siting), remote location issues, urban – high density population issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with these previous eight location adjustments.
Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for
the boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that were
8-2
included in outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The locations with local technical enhancements include California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These are areas where noise, visual impacts, and other
technical enhancements generally need to be made by a project developer or utility to comply
with the applicable permitting/siting requirements.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Conventional CT Facility
include Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming;
and Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the Conventional CT Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 8-2 presents the Conventional CT Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant
locations.
8-3
TABLE 8-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR CONVENTIONAL CT
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 975 31.7% 309 1,284
Alaska Fairbanks 975 36.5% 355 1,330
Alabama Huntsville 975 -7.1% (69) 906
Arizona Phoenix 975 3.8% 38 1,013
Arkansas Little Rock 975 -5.7% (55) 920
California Los Angeles 975 28.3% 276 1,251
California Redding 975 13.2% 129 1,104
California Bakersfield 975 15.6% 152 1,127
California Sacramento 975 19.3% 188 1,163
California San Francisco 975 43.6% 425 1,400
Colorado Denver 975 3.5% 34 1,009
Connecticut Hartford 975 27.1% 265 1,240
Delaware Dover 975 25.9% 253 1,228
District of Columbia Washington 975 33.8% 330 1,305
Florida Tallahassee 975 -9.6% (93) 882
Florida Tampa 975 -5.1% (50) 925
Georgia Atlanta 975 -4.9% (48) 927
Hawaii Honolulu 975 49.5% 482 1,457
Idaho Boise 975 -2.8% (28) 947
Illinois Chicago 975 13.6% 132 1,107
Indiana Indianapolis 975 1.3% 13 988
Iowa Davenport 975 0.9% 8 983
Iowa Waterloo 975 -4.6% (45) 930
Kansas Wichita 975 -3.0% (29) 946
Kentucky Louisville 975 -4.1% (40) 935
Louisiana New Orleans 975 -3.1% (30) 945
Maine Portland 975 -1.6% (15) 960
Maryland Baltimore 975 21.4% 208 1,183
Massachusetts Boston 975 37.5% 366 1,341
Michigan Detroit 975 4.8% 46 1,021
Michigan Grand Rapids 975 -3.8% (37) 938
Minnesota St. Paul 975 4.0% 39 1,014
Mississippi Jackson 975 -7.1% (69) 906
Missouri St. Louis 975 5.0% 48 1,023
Missouri Kansas City 975 2.4% 23 998
Montana Great Falls 975 -1.3% (12) 963
Nebraska Omaha 975 -0.6% (6) 969
New Hampshire Concord 975 8.0% 78 1,053
New Jersey Newark 975 19.3% 188 1,163
8-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 975 -1.4% (13) 962
New York New York 975 62.5% 609 1,584
New York Syracuse 975 16.8% 164 1,139
Nevada Las Vegas 975 5.2% 50 1,025
North Carolina Charlotte 975 -7.2% (70) 905
North Dakota Bismarck 975 -3.8% (38) 937
Ohio Cincinnati 975 -0.8% (8) 967
Oregon Portland 975 13.0% 127 1,102
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 975 24.1% 235 1,210
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 975 -0.7% (7) 968
Rhode Island Providence 975 21.6% 210 1,185
South Carolina Spartanburg 975 -10.3% (101) 874
South Dakota Rapid City 975 -5.8% (57) 918
Tennessee Knoxville 975 -6.6% (65) 910
Texas Houston 975 -7.0% (68) 907
Utah Salt Lake City 975 -2.6% (25) 950
Vermont Burlington 975 1.3% 13 988
Virginia Alexandria 975 16.8% 163 1,138
Virginia Lynchburg 975 -4.5% (44) 931
Washington Seattle 975 6.1% 59 1,034
Washington Spokane 975 -1.8% (18) 957
West Virginia Charleston 975 0.6% 6 981
Wisconsin Green Bay 975 -0.6% (6) 969
Wyoming Cheyenne 975 1.0% 10 985
Puerto Rico Cayey 975 12.1% 118 1,093
8-5
TABLE 8-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR CONVENTIONAL CT
Technology: Conventional CT
Fixed O&M Expense $6.98/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $14.70/MWh
8-6
9. ADVANCED COMBUSTION TURBINE (ACT)
9-1
TABLE 9-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR ADVANCED CT
Technology: Advanced CT
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 210,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 9,750 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
The locational considerations for the Advanced CT Facility are the same as those set forth in the
section on the Conventional CT Facility.
Table 9-2 presents the Advanced CT Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant
locations.
9-2
TABLE 9-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR ADVANCED CT
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 665 34.3% 228 893
Alaska Fairbanks 665 5.4% 36 701
Alabama Huntsville 665 -1.4% (9) 656
Arizona Phoenix 665 4.4% 29 694
Arkansas Little Rock 665 -3.4% (23) 642
California Los Angeles 665 5.6% 38 703
California Redding 665 2.5% 17 682
California Bakersfield 665 1.2% 8 673
California Sacramento 665 1.3% 9 674
California San Francisco 665 -0.2% (2) 663
Colorado Denver 665 20.6% 137 802
Connecticut Hartford 665 3.7% 25 690
Delaware Dover 665 61.7% 410 1,075
District of Columbia Washington 665 12.2% 81 746
Florida Tallahassee 665 4.6% 31 696
Florida Tampa 665 -4.6% (31) 634
Georgia Atlanta 665 -1.5% (10) 655
Hawaii Honolulu 665 1.2% 8 673
Idaho Boise 665 4.7% 31 696
Illinois Chicago 665 16.1% 107 772
Indiana Indianapolis 665 1.7% 11 676
Iowa Davenport 665 16.6% 111 776
Iowa Waterloo 665 -5.5% (37) 628
Kansas Wichita 665 -3.0% (20) 645
Kentucky Louisville 665 -4.6% (31) 634
Louisiana New Orleans 665 -5.2% (35) 630
Maine Portland 665 0.0% (0) 665
Maryland Baltimore 665 5.6% 37 702
Massachusetts Boston 665 12.6% 84 749
Michigan Detroit 665 -3.0% (20) 645
Michigan Grand Rapids 665 6.5% 43 708
Minnesota St. Paul 665 -0.6% (4) 661
Mississippi Jackson 665 2.3% 15 680
Missouri St. Louis 665 1.0% 6 671
Missouri Kansas City 665 5.5% 36 701
Montana Great Falls 665 10.3% 68 733
Nebraska Omaha 665 34.3% 228 893
New Hampshire Concord 665 5.4% 36 701
New Jersey Newark 665 -1.4% (9) 656
9-3
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 665 4.4% 29 694
New York New York 665 -3.4% (23) 642
New York Syracuse 665 5.6% 38 703
Nevada Las Vegas 665 2.5% 17 682
North Carolina Charlotte 665 1.2% 8 673
North Dakota Bismarck 665 1.3% 9 674
Ohio Cincinnati 665 -0.2% (2) 663
Oregon Portland 665 20.6% 137 802
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 665 3.7% 25 690
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 665 61.7% 410 1,075
Rhode Island Providence 665 12.2% 81 746
South Carolina Spartanburg 665 4.6% 31 696
South Dakota Rapid City 665 -4.6% (31) 634
Tennessee Knoxville 665 -1.5% (10) 655
Texas Houston 665 1.2% 8 673
Utah Salt Lake City 665 4.7% 31 696
Vermont Burlington 665 16.1% 107 772
Virginia Alexandria 665 1.7% 11 676
Virginia Lynchburg 665 16.6% 111 776
Washington Seattle 665 -5.5% (37) 628
Washington Spokane 665 -3.0% (20) 645
West Virginia Charleston 665 -4.6% (31) 634
Wisconsin Green Bay 665 -5.2% (35) 630
Wyoming Cheyenne 665 0.0% (0) 665
Puerto Rico Cayey 665 5.6% 37 702
9-4
TABLE 9-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR ADVANCED CT
Technology: Advanced CT
NOX 0.03 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0.001 lb/MMBtu
CO2 117 lb/MMBtu
9-5
10. INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC)
10-1
Captured particulate matter is cleaned from the filter elements using cleaned syngas (in a
back-pulse mode) and the carbon-rich material is pneumatically conveyed back to the first stage
of the gasifier for conversion.
Following particulate matter removal, the syngas is scrubbed with water to remove chlorine and
trace metals. The scrubbing medium is condensed sour water from the low-temperature heat
recovery system.
After the chlorine scrubber, the raw syngas is treated in COS hydrolysis units, which convert the
COS in the syngas to H2S. The syngas is then cooled to approximately 100°F in a series of shell
and tube heat exchangers in a step known as low-temperature heat recovery. This cooling
removes most of the water in the syngas. In addition, most of the NH3 and a small portion of
CO2 and H2S are absorbed in the water. A portion of the condensed water is used in the chlorine
scrubber with the remainder sent to sour water treatment. The low temperature heat removed
prior to acid gas removal (“AGR”) is used within the process.
After low-temperature heat recovery, the H2S is then removed in the AGR units. The AGR units
use the Selexol solvent in a single absorption stage to remove much of the sulfur from the
syngas. The syngas passes through a mercury removal system consisting of sulfated activated
carbon beds. Finally, the treated syngas is moisturized and sent to the power block.
The acid gas streams containing H2S and COS with some CO2 from AGR and sour water
treatment are fed to the sulfur recovery units (“SRUs”). The SRUs are based on a standard Claus
process to convert the acid gas to pure molten sulfur. The tail gas from the SRUs, composed of
CO2, nitrogen, and small amounts of sulfur, is catalytically hydrogenated to convert all of the
sulfur to H2S. This converted tail gas is compressed and recycled to the gasifiers.
Process water blowdown and water condensed during cooling of the sour syngas contains small
amounts of dissolved gases (H2S, CO2 and NH3). This water is treated in sour water stripping
units and either recycled to slurry preparation or further treated in a zero-liquid discharge
(“ZLD”) system to recover and reuse water. Solid waste from the ZLD is landfilled.
The power block for the IGCC Facility case is based on a two-on-one combined-cycle
configuration using F-class CTs. The combined cycle is similar to the Conventional NGCC
Facility except the CTs are designed to combust natural gas and/or syngas, and the combustors
are not DLN. Figure 10-1 presents the IGCC process flow diagram.
10-2
FIGURE 10-1 – IGCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION
10.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Coal is delivered to the IGCC Facility by rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the
IGCC is obtained from one of several available water sources; however, water is typically
sourced from an adjacent river, when possible. The IGCC uses a water treatment system and a
high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids from the cooling water and
to provide distilled water for HRSG makeup. Wastewater is sent to an adjacent river or other
approved wastewater delivery point. Further, the electrical interconnection from the IGCC on-
site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an adjacent utility substation.
10-3
10.4CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
The base Cost Estimate for the IGCC Facility with a nominal capacity of 600 MW is $3,565/kW
and with a nominal capacity of 1,200 MW is $3,221/kW. Table 10-1 and Table 10-2 summarize
the Cost Estimate categories for the IGCC Facility.
TABLE 10-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR IGCC
Technology: IGCC
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 600,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,700 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
10-4
TABLE 10-2 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR IGCC
Technology: IGCC
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 1,200,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 8,700 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences,
remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost
differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustments.
Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for
the boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that
included outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
10-5
Remote locations issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems for construction, because such areas are
long distances from urban areas, where labor is generally abundant. Remote location
designations were also considered in locations where higher equipment freight costs are typically
incurred, which for example are regions not near established rail or highway access. Remote
locations related to the IGCC Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii;
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the IGCC Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 10-3 and Table 10-4 present the IGCC Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S.
plant locations.
10-6
TABLE 10-3 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR IGCC (600,000 KW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 3,565 29.4% 1,049 4,614
Alaska Fairbanks 3,565 28.5% 1,016 4,581
Alabama Huntsville 3,565 -6.5% (232) 3,333
Arizona Phoenix 3,565 -4.5% (160) 3,405
Arkansas Little Rock 3,565 -4.7% (167) 3,398
California Los Angeles 3,565 18.1% 645 4,210
California Redding 3,565 8.7% 312 3,877
California Bakersfield 3,565 8.4% 299 3,864
California Sacramento 3,565 12.8% 455 4,020
California San Francisco 3,565 37.6% 1,342 4,907
Colorado Denver 3,565 -5.2% (187) 3,378
Connecticut Hartford 3,565 23.7% 846 4,411
Delaware Dover 3,565 20.6% 734 4,299
District of Columbia Washington 3,565 35.6% 1,269 4,834
Florida Tallahassee 3,565 -9.5% (339) 3,226
Florida Tampa 3,565 -4.3% (152) 3,413
Georgia Atlanta 3,565 -7.1% (252) 3,313
Hawaii Honolulu 0 0
Idaho Boise 3,565 -3.2% (113) 3,452
Illinois Chicago 3,565 17.4% 619 4,184
Indiana Indianapolis 3,565 2.9% 103 3,668
Iowa Davenport 3,565 -1.4% (48) 3,517
Iowa Waterloo 3,565 -7.8% (279) 3,286
Kansas Wichita 3,565 -5.8% (208) 3,357
Kentucky Louisville 3,565 -4.8% (172) 3,393
Louisiana New Orleans 3,565 -9.8% (348) 3,217
Maine Portland 3,565 -0.4% (14) 3,551
Maryland Baltimore 3,565 4.3% 153 3,718
Massachusetts Boston 3,565 31.3% 1,115 4,680
Michigan Detroit 3,565 3.4% 120 3,685
Michigan Grand Rapids 3,565 -6.8% (243) 3,322
Minnesota St. Paul 3,565 3.4% 123 3,688
Mississippi Jackson 3,565 -6.5% (230) 3,335
Missouri St. Louis 3,565 6.4% 227 3,792
Missouri Kansas City 3,565 3.0% 107 3,672
Montana Great Falls 3,565 -3.7% (131) 3,434
Nebraska Omaha 3,565 -3.0% (108) 3,457
New Hampshire Concord 3,565 -1.4% (49) 3,516
New Jersey Newark 3,565 13.5% 480 4,045
10-7
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 3,565 -3.4% (120) 3,445
New York New York 3,565 28.4% 1,013 4,578
New York Syracuse 3,565 9.7% 345 3,910
Nevada Las Vegas 3,565 8.1% 290 3,855
North Carolina Charlotte 3,565 -8.3% (296) 3,269
North Dakota Bismarck 3,565 -6.9% (247) 3,318
Ohio Cincinnati 3,565 0.4% 16 3,581
Oregon Portland 3,565 8.5% 303 3,868
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 3,565 10.6% 377 3,942
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 3,565 -3.0% (107) 3,458
Rhode Island Providence 3,565 3.6% 129 3,694
South Carolina Spartanburg 3,565 -10.2% (364) 3,201
South Dakota Rapid City 3,565 -9.3% (331) 3,234
Tennessee Knoxville 3,565 -7.7% (276) 3,289
Texas Houston 3,565 -8.3% (294) 3,271
Utah Salt Lake City 3,565 -2.6% (91) 3,474
Vermont Burlington 3,565 -4.6% (162) 3,403
Virginia Alexandria 3,565 8.8% 313 3,878
Virginia Lynchburg 3,565 -1.6% (56) 3,509
Washington Seattle 3,565 11.3% 404 3,969
Washington Spokane 3,565 -2.0% (70) 3,495
West Virginia Charleston 3,565 -1.5% (55) 3,510
Wisconsin Green Bay 3,565 0.5% 19 3,584
Wyoming Cheyenne 3,565 3.7% 132 3,697
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0
10-8
TABLE 10-4 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR IGCC (1,200,000 KW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 3,221 32.0% 1,031 4,252
Alaska Fairbanks 3,221 30.9% 996 4,217
Alabama Huntsville 3,221 -6.7% (216) 3,005
Arizona Phoenix 3,221 -4.6% (147) 3,074
Arkansas Little Rock 3,221 -4.8% (154) 3,067
California Los Angeles 3,221 19.8% 637 3,858
California Redding 3,221 9.6% 308 3,529
California Bakersfield 3,221 9.2% 296 3,517
California Sacramento 3,221 13.7% 442 3,663
California San Francisco 3,221 40.8% 1,313 4,534
Colorado Denver 3,221 -5.4% (173) 3,048
Connecticut Hartford 3,221 26.0% 836 4,057
Delaware Dover 3,221 22.7% 730 3,951
District of Columbia Washington 3,221 39.5% 1,272 4,493
Florida Tallahassee 3,221 -9.9% (318) 2,903
Florida Tampa 3,221 -4.4% (143) 3,078
Georgia Atlanta 3,221 -7.3% (235) 2,986
Hawaii Honolulu - -
Idaho Boise 3,221 -3.2% (102) 3,119
Illinois Chicago 3,221 18.2% 586 3,807
Indiana Indianapolis 3,221 3.3% 107 3,328
Iowa Davenport 3,221 -1.4% (45) 3,176
Iowa Waterloo 3,221 -8.1% (261) 2,960
Kansas Wichita 3,221 -6.0% (192) 3,029
Kentucky Louisville 3,221 -4.9% (158) 3,063
Louisiana New Orleans 3,221 -10.1% (326) 2,895
Maine Portland 3,221 0.0% (1) 3,220
Maryland Baltimore 3,221 5.0% 162 3,383
Massachusetts Boston 3,221 33.8% 1,087 4,308
Michigan Detroit 3,221 3.5% 114 3,335
Michigan Grand Rapids 3,221 -7.1% (227) 2,994
Minnesota St. Paul 3,221 3.6% 117 3,338
Mississippi Jackson 3,221 -6.6% (214) 3,007
Missouri St. Louis 3,221 6.9% 221 3,442
Missouri Kansas City 3,221 3.2% 103 3,324
Montana Great Falls 3,221 -3.7% (119) 3,102
Nebraska Omaha 3,221 -3.1% (99) 3,122
New Hampshire Concord 3,221 -1.3% (42) 3,179
New Jersey Newark 3,221 14.0% 449 3,670
10-9
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 3,221 -3.4% (109) 3,112
New York New York 3,221 29.5% 949 4,170
New York Syracuse 3,221 10.8% 349 3,570
Nevada Las Vegas 3,221 8.6% 278 3,499
North Carolina Charlotte 3,221 -8.5% (273) 2,948
North Dakota Bismarck 3,221 -7.2% (230) 2,991
Ohio Cincinnati 3,221 0.8% 25 3,246
Oregon Portland 3,221 9.3% 300 3,521
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 3,221 11.0% 355 3,576
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 3,221 -3.0% (96) 3,125
Rhode Island Providence 3,221 3.9% 124 3,345
South Carolina Spartanburg 3,221 -10.5% (337) 2,884
South Dakota Rapid City 3,221 -9.6% (309) 2,912
Tennessee Knoxville 3,221 -7.9% (256) 2,965
Texas Houston 3,221 -8.5% (275) 2,946
Utah Salt Lake City 3,221 -2.4% (76) 3,145
Vermont Burlington 3,221 -4.6% (148) 3,073
Virginia Alexandria 3,221 9.9% 320 3,541
Virginia Lynchburg 3,221 -1.3% (41) 3,180
Washington Seattle 3,221 12.3% 395 3,616
Washington Spokane 3,221 -1.9% (62) 3,159
West Virginia Charleston 3,221 -1.5% (49) 3,172
Wisconsin Green Bay 3,221 0.8% 27 3,248
Wyoming Cheyenne 3,221 4.6% 148 3,369
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
10.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general O&M items discussed in Section 2.5.2, IGCC Facility includes the
major maintenance for the CTs, as well as the BOP, including the ST, associated electric
generators, HRSGs, and emissions reduction catalysts. Additionally, provisions need to be made
for routine and major maintenance for the gasification systems, the ASU, and associated
gasification auxiliary equipment needs to be made. For example, major maintenance for the
gasifier includes repair and replacement of the refractory. Typically, significant overhauls on an
IGCC Facility occur no less frequently than 18 months and the cycle for the power generation
equipment is similar to the to the Advanced NGCC discussed above. Table 10-5 and Table 10-6
present the O&M expenses for the IGCC Facility.
TABLE 10-5 – O&M EXPENSES FOR IGCC (600,000 KW)
Technology: IGCC
Fixed O&M Expense $59.23/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $6.87/MWh
10-10
TABLE 10-6 – O&M EXPENSES FOR IGCC (1,200,000 KW)
Technology: IGCC
Fixed O&M Expense $48.90/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $6.87/MWh
10-11
11. INTEGRATED GASIFICATION COMBINED CYCLE WITH CCS (IGCC/CCS)
11.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
The off-site requirements for the IGCC/CCS Facility are materially similar to the IGCC Facility
(without CCS) discussed in Section 10.3, except that an interconnection needs to be made with
respect to the sequestration of CO2.
11-1
TABLE 11-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR IGCC/CCS
Technology: IGCC/CCS
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 520,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 10,700 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
The locational considerations for the IGCC/CCS Facility are the same as those set forth in
Section 10.4 for the IGCC Facility.
Table 11-2 presents the IGCC/CCS Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant
locations.
11-2
TABLE 11-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR IGCC/CCS
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 5,350 23.1% 1,236 6,586
Alaska Fairbanks 5,350 22.9% 1,225 6,575
Alabama Huntsville 5,350 -7.4% (397) 4,953
Arizona Phoenix 5,350 -5.5% (293) 5,057
Arkansas Little Rock 5,350 -5.7% (306) 5,044
California Los Angeles 5,350 13.7% 732 6,082
California Redding 5,350 6.5% 348 5,698
California Bakersfield 5,350 6.1% 326 5,676
California Sacramento 5,350 11.1% 591 5,941
California San Francisco 5,350 30.7% 1,642 6,992
Colorado Denver 5,350 -6.3% (335) 5,015
Connecticut Hartford 5,350 17.7% 946 6,296
Delaware Dover 5,350 14.5% 774 6,124
District of Columbia Washington 5,350 23.0% 1,229 6,579
Florida Tallahassee 5,350 -10.5% (561) 4,789
Florida Tampa 5,350 -4.5% (243) 5,107
Georgia Atlanta 5,350 -8.1% (432) 4,918
Hawaii Honolulu 0 0 0 0
Idaho Boise 5,350 -4.2% (227) 5,123
Illinois Chicago 5,350 17.9% 959 6,309
Indiana Indianapolis 5,350 1.2% 67 5,417
Iowa Davenport 5,350 -1.5% (82) 5,268
Iowa Waterloo 5,350 -8.9% (474) 4,876
Kansas Wichita 5,350 -6.9% (370) 4,980
Kentucky Louisville 5,350 -5.8% (309) 5,041
Louisiana New Orleans 5,350 -10.8% (577) 4,773
Maine Portland 5,350 -2.8% (151) 5,199
Maryland Baltimore 5,350 1.1% 60 5,410
Massachusetts Boston 5,350 26.2% 1,402 6,752
Michigan Detroit 5,350 3.5% 185 5,535
Michigan Grand Rapids 5,350 -7.7% (413) 4,937
Minnesota St. Paul 5,350 3.4% 181 5,531
Mississippi Jackson 5,350 -7.4% (394) 4,956
Missouri St. Louis 5,350 5.5% 295 5,645
Missouri Kansas City 5,350 2.7% 145 5,495
Montana Great Falls 5,350 -4.8% (259) 5,091
Nebraska Omaha 5,350 -3.8% (201) 5,149
New Hampshire Concord 5,350 -2.2% (119) 5,231
New Jersey Newark 5,350 14.9% 795 6,145
11-3
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 5,350 -4.4% (235) 5,115
New York New York 5,350 31.4% 1,681 7,031
New York Syracuse 5,350 5.5% 295 5,645
Nevada Las Vegas 5,350 7.7% 410 5,760
North Carolina Charlotte 5,350 -10.1% (538) 4,812
North Dakota Bismarck 5,350 -7.8% (419) 4,931
Ohio Cincinnati 5,350 -1.5% (82) 5,268
Oregon Portland 5,350 6.2% 333 5,683
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,350 11.3% 602 5,952
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,350 -4.1% (217) 5,133
Rhode Island Providence 5,350 3.4% 183 5,533
South Carolina Spartanburg 5,350 -12.0% (640) 4,710
South Dakota Rapid City 5,350 -10.5% (562) 4,788
Tennessee Knoxville 5,350 -9.1% (486) 4,864
Texas Houston 5,350 -9.3% (499) 4,851
Utah Salt Lake City 5,350 -4.6% (245) 5,105
Vermont Burlington 5,350 -5.8% (311) 5,039
Virginia Alexandria 5,350 4.5% 241 5,591
Virginia Lynchburg 5,350 -3.8% (203) 5,147
Washington Seattle 5,350 9.4% 505 5,855
Washington Spokane 5,350 -2.9% (154) 5,196
West Virginia Charleston 5,350 -2.1% (111) 5,239
Wisconsin Green Bay 5,350 -1.1% (58) 5,292
Wyoming Cheyenne 5,350 -0.5% (29) 5,321
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
11.5O&M ESTIMATE
The O&M methodology for the IGCC/CCS Facility is the same as that set forth in the section on
the IGCC Facility, except that consideration needs to be made for the additional maintenance
resulting from the CCS equipment.
Table 11-3 presents the O&M expenses for the IGCC/CCS Facility.
TABLE 11-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR IGCC/CCS
Technology: IGCC/CCS
Fixed O&M Expense $69.30/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $8.04/MWh
11-4
TABLE 11-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR IGCC/CCS
Technology: IGCC/CCS
NOX 0.0075 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0.015 lb/MMBtu
CO2 20.6 lb/MMBtu
11-5
12. ADVANCED NUCLEAR (AN)
12-1
ST exhaust heats the condensate and feedwater before it is sent back to the reactor. The HP and
LP STs are connected via a common shaft that drives the generator which produces the electrical
power output of approximately 1,100 MW per unit.
The steam that exits the LP section of the ST, as well as the drains from the feedwater heaters,
are directed to the condenser. The condenser is a surface condensing (tube type) heat exchanger
that is maintained under vacuum to increase the turbine efficiency. The steam condenses on the
outside of the tubes and condenser cooling water is circulated through the inside of the tubes.
Numerous other systems are needed to support and provide redundancy for the cycle process
described herein. These include the residual heat removal system, the HP core flooder system,
and the LP core flooder system which are redundant systems and are designed to remove heat
from the reactor core in the event the normal core cooling system fails. Other support systems
include the liquid and solid radioactive waste systems which handle, control, and process
radioactive waste from the plant. The reactor containment ventilation system controls and filters
airborne radiation. Figure 12-1 presents a simplified process flow diagram for a PWR AN plant.
FIGURE 12-1 – AN DESIGN CONFIGURATION
12-2
The AN Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the facility
by integrating the control systems provided with the reactor, ST and associated electric generator
and the control of BOP systems and equipment.
12.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Water for all processes at the AN Facility is obtained from one of several available water supply
options; however, water is typically sourced from an adjacent river, when possible. The
AN Facility uses a water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to
reduce the dissolved solids from the cooling water and to provide distilled water. Wastewater is
sent to an adjacent river or other approved wastewater delivery point. Further, the electrical
interconnection from the AN on-site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an adjacent
utility substation.
12-3
TABLE 12-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR AN
Technology: AN
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 2,236,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Advanced Nuclear Facility
12-4
include Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming;
and Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the AN Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 12-2 presents the AN Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
TABLE 12-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR AN
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 5,340 16.3% 868 6,208
Alaska Fairbanks 5,340 16.4% 878 6,218
Alabama Huntsville 5,340 -3.3% (174) 5,166
Arizona Phoenix 5,340 -2.4% (126) 5,214
Arkansas Little Rock 5,340 -2.5% (131) 5,209
California Los Angeles 5,340 9.5% 505 5,845
California Redding 5,340 4.6% 245 5,585
California Bakersfield 5,340 4.4% 236 5,576
California Sacramento 5,340 6.5% 348 5,688
California San Francisco 5,340 20.9% 1,114 6,454
Colorado Denver 5,340 -2.6% (136) 5,204
Connecticut Hartford 5,340 14.7% 784 6,124
Delaware Dover 5,340 13.2% 707 6,047
District of Columbia Washington 5,340 23.9% 1,275 6,615
Florida Tallahassee 5,340 -4.6% (248) 5,092
Florida Tampa 5,340 -2.1% (114) 5,226
Georgia Atlanta 5,340 -3.5% (189) 5,151
Hawaii Honolulu 0 0 0 0
Idaho Boise 5,340 -1.6% (86) 5,254
Illinois Chicago 5,340 9.0% 479 5,819
Indiana Indianapolis 5,340 2.0% 108 5,448
Iowa Davenport 5,340 -0.6% (35) 5,305
Iowa Waterloo 5,340 -3.7% (200) 5,140
Kansas Wichita 5,340 -2.8% (151) 5,189
Kentucky Louisville 5,340 -2.4% (126) 5,214
12-5
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Louisiana New Orleans 5,340 -4.8% (254) 5,086
Maine Portland 5,340 0.4% 21 5,361
Maryland Baltimore 5,340 3.4% 180 5,520
Massachusetts Boston 5,340 18.3% 976 6,316
Michigan Detroit 5,340 1.6% 83 5,423
Michigan Grand Rapids 5,340 -3.3% (174) 5,166
Minnesota St. Paul 5,340 1.9% 99 5,439
Mississippi Jackson 5,340 -3.2% (173) 5,167
Missouri St. Louis 5,340 2.8% 148 5,488
Missouri Kansas City 5,340 1.3% 70 5,410
Montana Great Falls 5,340 -1.9% (100) 5,240
Nebraska Omaha 5,340 -1.5% (80) 5,260
New Hampshire Concord 5,340 -0.8% (41) 5,299
New Jersey Newark 5,340 6.4% 340 5,680
New Mexico Albuquerque 5,340 -1.6% (83) 5,257
New York New York 5,340 13.4% 718 6,058
New York Syracuse 5,340 6.6% 355 5,695
Nevada Las Vegas 5,340 4.1% 220 5,560
North Carolina Charlotte 5,340 -4.1% (218) 5,122
North Dakota Bismarck 5,340 -3.3% (176) 5,164
Ohio Cincinnati 5,340 0.8% 45 5,385
Oregon Portland 5,340 4.5% 239 5,579
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,340 4.9% 263 5,603
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,340 -1.5% (82) 5,258
Rhode Island Providence 5,340 1.6% 87 5,427
South Carolina Spartanburg 5,340 -5.1% (272) 5,068
South Dakota Rapid City 5,340 -4.4% (237) 5,103
Tennessee Knoxville 5,340 -3.7% (200) 5,140
Texas Houston 5,340 -3.9% (210) 5,130
Utah Salt Lake City 5,340 -1.5% (80) 5,260
Vermont Burlington 5,340 -2.3% (122) 5,218
Virginia Alexandria 5,340 6.2% 332 5,672
Virginia Lynchburg 5,340 -0.1% (6) 5,334
Washington Seattle 5,340 5.8% 311 5,651
Washington Spokane 5,340 -1.0% (56) 5,284
West Virginia Charleston 5,340 -0.8% (42) 5,298
Wisconsin Green Bay 5,340 1.0% 51 5,391
Wyoming Cheyenne 5,340 3.5% 188 5,528
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0 0 0
12-6
12.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the
AN Facility includes provisions for major maintenance on the steam generators, STs, electric
generators, BOP systems, and the reactor (beyond refueling). Table 12-3 presents the O&M
expenses for the AN Facility.
TABLE 12-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR AN
Technology: AN
Fixed O&M Expense $88.75/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $2.04/MWh
12-7
13. BIOMASS COMBINED CYCLE (BCC)
13-1
Nitrogen is required for start-up and shutdown. A separate steam system is required for start-up.
NH3 is required for operation of the two SCRs for reducing NOX emissions. A flare system is
required for normal operation to eliminate volatile organics from the scrubbing system, and for
start-up and shutdown of the process. Figure 13-1 presents the BCC process flow diagram,
where the “Power Block” is based on a traditional combined-cycle configuration, as is often the
case for gasification derivative plants.
FIGURE 13-1 – BCC DESIGN CONFIGURATION
13-2
electric generator, ST and associated electric generator, and the control of BOP systems and
equipment.
13.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Biomass is delivered to the BCC Facility by rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the
BCC Facility is obtained from one of several available water sources. The BCC Facility uses a
water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved
solids from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for HRSG makeup. Wastewater is
sent to a municipal wastewater system or other available wastewater delivery point. Further, the
electrical interconnection from the BCC Facility on-site switchyard is effectuated by a
connection to an adjacent utility substation.
13-3
TABLE 13-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR BCC
Technology: BCC
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 20,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 12,350 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences,
remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost
differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustments.
Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for
the boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that
included outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
13-4
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the BCC include Fairbanks,
Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto
Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the BCC Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 13-2 presents the BCC Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
13-5
TABLE 13-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BCC
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 7,900 14.0% 1,104 9,004
Alaska Fairbanks 7,900 15.2% 1,197 9,097
Alabama Huntsville 7,900 -6.0% (472) 7,428
Arizona Phoenix 0 0.0% 0 0
Arkansas Little Rock 7,900 -5.0% (392) 7,508
California Los Angeles 7,900 7.2% 566 8,466
California Redding 7,900 3.3% 262 8,162
California Bakersfield 7,900 3.0% 237 8,137
California Sacramento 7,900 6.8% 539 8,439
California San Francisco 7,900 19.6% 1,547 9,447
Colorado Denver 7,900 -9.2% (724) 7,176
Connecticut Hartford 7,900 11.9% 940 8,840
Delaware Dover 7,900 9.7% 768 8,668
District of Columbia Washington 7,900 15.1% 1,196 9,096
Florida Tallahassee 7,900 -8.0% (635) 7,265
Florida Tampa 7,900 -3.5% (274) 7,626
Georgia Atlanta 7,900 -6.5% (511) 7,389
Hawaii Honolulu 7,900 29.3% 2,311 10,211
Idaho Boise 7,900 -3.9% (304) 7,596
Illinois Chicago 7,900 13.6% 1,073 8,973
Indiana Indianapolis 7,900 0.4% 35 7,935
Iowa Davenport 7,900 -1.2% (93) 7,807
Iowa Waterloo 7,900 -6.8% (539) 7,361
Kansas Wichita 7,900 -5.6% (444) 7,456
Kentucky Louisville 7,900 -4.7% (375) 7,525
Louisiana New Orleans 7,900 -8.3% (653) 7,247
Maine Portland 7,900 -3.0% (236) 7,664
Maryland Baltimore 7,900 0.1% 10 7,910
Massachusetts Boston 7,900 18.5% 1,459 9,359
Michigan Detroit 7,900 2.4% 188 8,088
Michigan Grand Rapids 7,900 -5.9% (469) 7,431
Minnesota St. Paul 7,900 2.5% 200 8,100
Mississippi Jackson 7,900 -5.9% (469) 7,431
Missouri St. Louis 7,900 2.8% 220 8,120
Missouri Kansas City 7,900 1.5% 119 8,019
Montana Great Falls 7,900 -4.8% (379) 7,521
Nebraska Omaha 7,900 -3.2% (252) 7,648
New Hampshire Concord 7,900 -2.3% (182) 7,718
New Jersey Newark 7,900 11.2% 882 8,782
13-6
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 0 0.0% 0 0
New York New York 7,900 23.6% 1,866 9,766
New York Syracuse 7,900 3.3% 259 8,159
Nevada Las Vegas 0 0.0% 0 0
North Carolina Charlotte 7,900 -8.3% (658) 7,242
North Dakota Bismarck 7,900 -6.0% (476) 7,424
Ohio Cincinnati 7,900 -1.7% (134) 7,766
Oregon Portland 7,900 3.1% 246 8,146
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 7,900 8.1% 639 8,539
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 7,900 -3.7% (293) 7,607
Rhode Island Providence 7,900 2.1% 162 8,062
South Carolina Spartanburg 7,900 -9.8% (771) 7,129
South Dakota Rapid City 7,900 -8.1% (639) 7,261
Tennessee Knoxville 7,900 -7.3% (575) 7,325
Texas Houston 7,900 -7.2% (568) 7,332
Utah Salt Lake City 0 0.0% 0 0
Vermont Burlington 7,900 -5.1% (400) 7,500
Virginia Alexandria 7,900 2.5% 198 8,098
Virginia Lynchburg 7,900 -3.4% (271) 7,629
Washington Seattle 7,900 5.6% 441 8,341
Washington Spokane 7,900 -2.8% (222) 7,678
West Virginia Charleston 7,900 -1.9% (149) 7,751
Wisconsin Green Bay 7,900 -1.1% (83) 7,817
Wyoming Cheyenne 0 0.0% 0 0
Puerto Rico Cayey 7,900 -3.7% (290) 7,610
13.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the
BCC Facility include the major maintenance for the CT, as well as the BOP, including the ST,
associated electric generator, HRSG, and emissions reduction catalysts. These major
maintenance expenses are included with the VOM expense for this technology and are given on
an average basis across the MWhs incurred. Typically, significant overhauls on a BCC Facility
occur no less frequently than 8,000 operating hour intervals, with more significant major outages
occurring on 24,000 hour intervals. Additionally, major maintenance needs to be completed on
the gasifier, including the refractory, which due to the lower operating temperature (as compared
to the IGCC Facility discussed above) only needs replacing approximately every 10 years.
Table 13-3 presents the O&M expenses for the BCC Facility.
TABLE 13-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BCC
Technology: BCC
Fixed O&M Expense $338.79/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $16.64/MWh
13-7
13.6ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
The BCC Facility utilizes syngas combustors (which do not have DLN) in the CT and best
available burner technology with respect to the duct burners in the HRSGs to manage the
production of NOX and CO. Additional control of NOX and CO is accomplished through an SCR
and an oxidization catalyst, respectively. SO2 in the IGCC is managed through the use of low-
sulfur biomass feedstocks. The BCC does not include any control devices for CO2, which is
proportional to the heat rate (inversely proportional to the efficiency) of the technology. Water,
wastewater, and solid waste compliance are achieved through traditional on-site and off-site
methods, and the costs for such compliance are included in the O&M Estimate for the BCC
Facility. Table 13-4 presents environmental emissions for the BCC Facility.
TABLE 13-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BCC
Technology: BCC
NOX 0.054 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 195 lb/MMBtu
13-8
14. BIOMASS BUBBLING FLUIZED BED (BBFB)
14-1
14.2ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
The BBFB Facility has one ST electric generator. The generator for the ST is a 60 Hz machine
rated at approximately 65 MVA with an output voltage of 13.8 kV. The generator breakers for
the ST electric generator are bussed together in 15 kV class switchgear that is connected to a
high-voltage transmission system at the facility switchyard via a circuit breaker, GSU, and a
disconnect switch. The GSU increases the voltage from the electric generators from 13.8 kV to
interconnected transmission system high voltage.
The BBFB Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the
facility by integrating the control systems provided with the ST and associated electric generator
and the control of BOP systems and equipment.
14.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Biomass is delivered to the BBFBFacility by rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the
BBFB Facility is obtained from one of several available water sources. The BBFB Facility uses
a water treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved
solids from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for HRSG makeup. Wastewater is
sent to a municipal wastewater system or other available wastewater delivery point. Further, the
electrical interconnection from the BBFB Facility on-site switchyard is effectuated by a
connection to an adjacent utility substation.
14-2
TABLE 14-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR BBFB
Technology: BBFB
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 50,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 13,500 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: outdoor installation considerations, seismic design differences,
remote location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost
differences, and the increase in overheads associated with these six adjustments.
Outdoor installation locations are considered in geographic areas where enclosed structures for
the boilers would not be required due to the low probability of freezing. The locations that
included outdoor installation are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Puerto Rico.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
14-3
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the BCC include Fairbanks,
Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto
Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the BCC Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 14-2 presents the BBFB Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
14-4
TABLE 14-2– LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR BBFB
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 3,860 25.8% 995 4,855
Alaska Fairbanks 3,860 27.9% 1,076 4,936
Alabama Huntsville 3,860 -9.7% (376) 3,484
Arizona Phoenix 0 0.0% 0 0
Arkansas Little Rock 3,860 -8.1% (311) 3,549
California Los Angeles 3,860 13.4% 516 4,376
California Redding 3,860 6.3% 242 4,102
California Bakersfield 3,860 5.7% 221 4,081
California Sacramento 3,860 11.9% 460 4,320
California San Francisco 3,860 35.6% 1,373 5,233
Colorado Denver 3,860 -8.2% (318) 3,542
Connecticut Hartford 3,860 22.9% 882 4,742
Delaware Dover 3,860 19.3% 745 4,605
District of Columbia Washington 3,860 31.6% 1,219 5,079
Florida Tallahassee 3,860 -13.1% (506) 3,354
Florida Tampa 3,860 -5.7% (221) 3,639
Georgia Atlanta 3,860 -10.5% (407) 3,453
Hawaii Honolulu 3,860 58.2% 2,248 6,108
Idaho Boise 3,860 -6.2% (238) 3,622
Illinois Chicago 3,860 22.7% 875 4,735
Indiana Indianapolis 3,860 1.5% 56 3,916
Iowa Davenport 3,860 -1.9% (74) 3,786
Iowa Waterloo 3,860 -11.0% (426) 3,434
Kansas Wichita 3,860 -9.1% (350) 3,510
Kentucky Louisville 3,860 -7.6% (295) 3,565
Louisiana New Orleans 3,860 -13.5% (520) 3,340
Maine Portland 3,860 -4.0% (156) 3,704
Maryland Baltimore 3,860 1.6% 63 3,923
Massachusetts Boston 3,860 33.5% 1,292 5,152
Michigan Detroit 3,860 3.9% 150 4,010
Michigan Grand Rapids 3,860 -9.6% (371) 3,489
Minnesota St. Paul 3,860 4.3% 166 4,026
Mississippi Jackson 3,860 -9.7% (373) 3,487
Missouri St. Louis 3,860 4.7% 181 4,041
Missouri Kansas City 3,860 2.5% 96 3,956
Montana Great Falls 3,860 -4.8% (185) 3,675
Nebraska Omaha 3,860 -5.1% (198) 3,662
New Hampshire Concord 3,860 -3.6% (141) 3,719
New Jersey Newark 3,860 18.1% 698 4,558
14-5
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 3,860 0.0% (3,860) -
New York New York 3,860 38.3% 1,477 5,337
New York Syracuse 3,860 7.5% 288 4,148
Nevada Las Vegas 0 0.0% 0 0
North Carolina Charlotte 3,860 -13.4% (517) 3,343
North Dakota Bismarck 3,860 -9.7% (376) 3,484
Ohio Cincinnati 3,860 -2.0% (77) 3,783
Oregon Portland 3,860 5.9% 228 4,088
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 3,860 13.1% 507 4,367
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 3,860 -5.9% (229) 3,631
Rhode Island Providence 3,860 3.4% 131 3,991
South Carolina Spartanburg 3,860 -15.8% (611) 3,249
South Dakota Rapid City 3,860 -13.1% (505) 3,355
Tennessee Knoxville 3,860 -11.7% (453) 3,407
Texas Houston 3,860 -11.6% (449) 3,411
Utah Salt Lake City 0 0.0% 0 0
Vermont Burlington 3,860 -8.1% (314) 3,546
Virginia Alexandria 3,860 6.2% 240 4,100
Virginia Lynchburg 3,860 -4.8% (186) 3,674
Washington Seattle 3,860 9.9% 382 4,242
Washington Spokane 3,860 -4.5% (172) 3,688
West Virginia Charleston 3,860 -3.0% (117) 3,743
Wisconsin Green Bay 3,860 -1.0% (39) 3,821
Wyoming Cheyenne 0 0.0% 0 0
Puerto Rico Cayey 3,860 -5.5% (213) 3,647
14.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the
BBFB Facility includes the major maintenance for the ST and associated electric generator, as
well as the BOP. These major maintenance expenses are included with the VOM expense for
this technology and are given on an average basis across the MWhs incurred. Typically,
significant overhauls on a BBFB Facility occur no less frequently than 6 to 8 years. Table 14-3
presents the O&M expenses for the BBFB Facility.
TABLE 14-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BCC
Technology: BCC
Fixed O&M Expense $100.50/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $5.0/MWh
14-6
14.6ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
The BBFB Facility utilizes BFB combustion to control NOX and CO. SO2 in the BFB is
managed through the use of low-sulfur biomass feedstocks. The BBFB Facility does not include
any control devices for CO2, which is proportional to the heat rate (inversely proportional to the
efficiency) of the technology. Water, wastewater, and solid waste compliance are achieved
through traditional on-site and off-site methods, and the costs for such compliance are included
in the O&M Estimate for the BBFB Facility. Table 14-4 presents environmental emissions for
the BBFB Facility.
TABLE 14-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BBFB
Technology: BBFB
NOX 0.08 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 195 lb/MMBtu
14-7
15. FUEL CELL (FC) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
The Fuel Cell (“FC”) Facility utilizes multiple phosphoric acid fuel cell units, each with a power
output of 400 kW, for a total output of 10 MW. The fuel cells convert chemical energy directly
into electricity from natural gas and air vapor and produce heat and water vapor as byproducts.
The fuel (the reactant) is introduced continuously to the anode side of the unit cell while air (the
oxidant) is introduced continuously into the cathode side via a blower. In a fuel cell, electricity
is produced by ionic transfer across an electrolyte that separates the fuel from the air. A high
temperature fuel cell produces electricity by splitting a molecule of the oxidant into its ionic
components at the cathode, passing ions through the electrolyte (e.g. in the case of the
FC Facility, a phosphoric acid ion) and then reacting the ions with the fuel at the anode to
produce heat to allow the reaction to occur. During this ionic transfer process, two electrons are
stripped from each ion to which develops a voltage and current. Since each fuel cell develops a
relatively low voltage, the cells are stacked to produce a higher, more useful voltage. Depending
on the type of fuel cell, high temperature waste heat from the process may be available for
cogeneration applications. Figure 15-1 presents the fuel cell process flow diagram.
FIGURE 15-1 – FC DESIGN CONFIGURATION
15.2OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Natural gas is delivered to the FC Facility through a lateral or in an urban environment,
potentially through the local distribution company infrastructure. Water for all processes at the
15-1
FC Facility is obtained from one of several available water sources, but given that the water
needs are low, a municipal (potable) water source would be preferable. Wastewater is sent to a
municipal wastewater system. Further, the electrical interconnection from the FC Facility is into
the local grid distribution infrastructure.
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments.
15-2
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the FC Facility include
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the FC Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 15-2 presents the FC Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
15-3
TABLE 15-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR FC
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 6,835 12.7% 871 7,706
Alaska Fairbanks 6,835 18.4% 1,255 8,090
Alabama Huntsville 6,835 -4.6% (312) 6,523
Arizona Phoenix 6,835 -3.5% (240) 6,595
Arkansas Little Rock 6,835 -3.7% (251) 6,584
California Los Angeles 6,835 4.3% 293 7,128
California Redding 6,835 1.7% 119 6,954
California Bakersfield 6,835 2.2% 150 6,985
California Sacramento 6,835 4.6% 313 7,148
California San Francisco 6,835 10.7% 733 7,568
Colorado Denver 6,835 -4.1% (278) 6,557
Connecticut Hartford 6,835 4.4% 299 7,134
Delaware Dover 6,835 2.4% 166 7,001
District of Columbia Washington 6,835 1.9% 127 6,962
Florida Tallahassee 6,835 -6.3% (432) 6,403
Florida Tampa 6,835 -2.6% (179) 6,656
Georgia Atlanta 6,835 -5.0% (340) 6,495
Hawaii Honolulu 6,835 12.0% 817 7,652
Idaho Boise 6,835 -3.0% (203) 6,632
Illinois Chicago 6,835 10.0% 681 7,516
Indiana Indianapolis 6,835 -0.6% (42) 6,793
Iowa Davenport 6,835 -1.0% (65) 6,770
Iowa Waterloo 6,835 -5.5% (378) 6,457
Kansas Wichita 6,835 -4.5% (306) 6,529
Kentucky Louisville 6,835 -3.8% (258) 6,577
Louisiana New Orleans 6,835 -6.5% (445) 6,390
Maine Portland 6,835 -2.4% (162) 6,673
Maryland Baltimore 6,835 -1.3% (86) 6,749
Massachusetts Boston 6,835 9.7% 662 7,497
Michigan Detroit 6,835 2.3% 156 6,991
Michigan Grand Rapids 6,835 -4.5% (310) 6,525
Minnesota St. Paul 6,835 1.9% 133 6,968
Mississippi Jackson 6,835 -4.5% (310) 6,525
Missouri St. Louis 6,835 2.6% 180 7,015
Missouri Kansas City 6,835 1.4% 94 6,929
Montana Great Falls 6,835 -3.1% (209) 6,626
Nebraska Omaha 6,835 -2.5% (172) 6,663
New Hampshire Concord 6,835 -1.4% (98) 6,737
New Jersey Newark 6,835 10.1% 689 7,524
15-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 6,835 -2.8% (194) 6,641
New York New York 6,835 22.2% 1,514 8,349
New York Syracuse 6,835 -0.7% (48) 6,787
Nevada Las Vegas 6,835 3.7% 253 7,088
North Carolina Charlotte 6,835 -6.6% (451) 6,384
North Dakota Bismarck 6,835 -4.6% (314) 6,521
Ohio Cincinnati 6,835 -2.6% (180) 6,655
Oregon Portland 6,835 1.6% 107 6,942
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 6,835 6.7% 459 7,294
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 6,835 -2.9% (195) 6,640
Rhode Island Providence 6,835 1.8% 124 6,959
South Carolina Spartanburg 6,835 -7.6% (517) 6,318
South Dakota Rapid City 6,835 -6.3% (429) 6,406
Tennessee Knoxville 6,835 -5.8% (398) 6,437
Texas Houston 6,835 -5.8% (398) 6,437
Utah Salt Lake City 6,835 -3.7% (251) 6,584
Vermont Burlington 6,835 -3.7% (251) 6,584
Virginia Alexandria 6,835 -0.8% (52) 6,783
Virginia Lynchburg 6,835 -4.0% (276) 6,559
Washington Seattle 6,835 3.6% 244 7,079
Washington Spokane 6,835 -1.8% (126) 6,709
West Virginia Charleston 6,835 -1.2% (80) 6,755
Wisconsin Green Bay 6,835 -1.9% (130) 6,705
Wyoming Cheyenne 6,835 -3.6% (245) 6,590
Puerto Rico Cayey 6,835 -0.2% (14) 6,821
15.4O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate,
since a FC is a direct energy conversion device, the specific O&M related to the FC Facility that
differs from other facilities discussed in this report is the stack replacement, currently anticipated
to be every five years by the various vendors and developers. Table 15-3 presents the O&M
expenses for the FC Facility.
TABLE 15-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR FC
Technology: FC
Fixed O&M Expense $350/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
15-5
15.5ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
Table 15-4 presents environmental emissions for the FC Facility. It should be noted that the CO2
production from the FC Facility occurs as a result of reforming natural gas to the feedstock for
the fuel cell module.
TABLE 15-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR FC
Technology: FC
NOX <0.013 lb/MMBtu
SO2 <0.00013 lb/MMBtu
CO2 <130 lb/MMBtu
15-6
16. GEOTHERMAL DUAL FLASH (GT)
16-1
FIGURE 16-1 – GT DESIGN CONFIGURATION
16.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Since the GT Facility is fueled by a renewable, underground fuel source, an off-site fuel source,
other than incidental plant heating, is not required. Water for all processes at the GT Facility is
obtained from one of several available water sources; however, due to the geography of most
geothermal power plants, water is sourced from on-site wells. Processed wastewater is generally
re-injected, if wells are the source of water, though many GT facilities utilize ZLD. Further, the
16-2
electrical interconnection from the GT Facility is accomplished by interconnecting via the plant
switchyard into the utility high-voltage transmission system.
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, local technical enhancements
(e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in urban siting), remote location
issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments. It was assumed that geothermal facilities
would only be considered in 13 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
16-3
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Geothermal Facility include
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the GT Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Wyoming.
Table 16-2 presents the GT Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
16-4
TABLE 16-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR GT
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 5,580 13.9% 777 6,357
Alaska Fairbanks 5,580 20.6% 1,150 6,730
Alabama Huntsville 0 0.0% 0 0
Arizona Phoenix 5,580 -3.1% (173) 5,407
Arkansas Little Rock 0 0.0% 0 0
California Los Angeles 5,580 5.4% 301 5,881
California Redding 5,580 1.8% 101 5,681
California Bakersfield 5,580 2.4% 136 5,716
California Sacramento 5,580 4.9% 271 5,851
California San Francisco 5,580 11.8% 661 6,241
Colorado Denver 5,580 -3.0% (165) 5,415
Connecticut Hartford 0 0.0% 0 0
Delaware Dover 0 0.0% 0 0
District of Columbia Washington 0 0.0% 0 0
Florida Tallahassee 0 0.0% 0 0
Florida Tampa 0 0.0% 0 0
Georgia Atlanta 0 0.0% 0 0
Hawaii Honolulu 5,580 21.8% 1,217 6,797
Idaho Boise 5,580 -2.6% (146) 5,434
Illinois Chicago 0 0.0% 0 0
Indiana Indianapolis 0 0.0% 0 0
Iowa Davenport 0 0.0% 0 0
Iowa Waterloo 0 0.0% 0 0
Kansas Wichita 0 0.0% 0 0
Kentucky Louisville 0 0.0% 0 0
Louisiana New Orleans 0 0.0% 0 0
Maine Portland 0 0.0% 0 0
Maryland Baltimore 0 0.0% 0 0
Massachusetts Boston 0 0.0% 0 0
Michigan Detroit 0 0.0% 0 0
Michigan Grand Rapids 0 0.0% 0 0
Minnesota St. Paul 0 0.0% 0 0
Mississippi Jackson 0 0.0% 0 0
Missouri St. Louis 0 0.0% 0 0
Missouri Kansas City 0 0.0% 0 0
Montana Great Falls 0 0.0% 0 0
Nebraska Omaha 0 0.0% 0 0
New Hampshire Concord 0 0.0% 0 0
New Jersey Newark 0 0.0% 0 0
16-5
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 5,580 -2.1% (117) 5,463
New York New York 0 0.0% 0 0
New York Syracuse 0 0.0% 0 0
Nevada Las Vegas 5,580 3.5% 193 5,773
North Carolina Charlotte 0 0.0% 0 0
North Dakota Bismarck 0 0.0% 0 0
Ohio Cincinnati 0 0.0% 0 0
Oregon Portland 5,580 1.7% 92 5,672
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0 0.0% 0 0
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 0 0.0% 0 0
Rhode Island Providence 0 0.0% 0 0
South Carolina Spartanburg 0 0.0% 0 0
South Dakota Rapid City 0 0.0% 0 0
Tennessee Knoxville 0 0.0% 0 0
Texas Houston 0 0.0% 0 0
Utah Salt Lake City 5,580 -3.1% (173) 5,407
Vermont Burlington 0 0.0% 0 0
Virginia Alexandria 0 0.0% 0 0
Virginia Lynchburg 0 0.0% 0 0
Washington Seattle 5,580 3.5% 194 5,774
Washington Spokane 5,580 -1.8% (103) 5,477
West Virginia Charleston 0 0.0% 0 0
Wisconsin Green Bay 0 0.0% 0 0
Wyoming Cheyenne 5,580 -2.9% (164) 5,416
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0.0% 0 0
16.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the
GT Facility includes major maintenance on the ST, electric generator (each approximately every
six years) and well field maintenance, which can vary depending on the GT resource. Table 16-3
presents the FOM and VOM expenses for the GT Facility.
TABLE 16-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR GT
Technology: GT
Fixed O&M Expense $84.27/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $9.46/MWh
16-6
TABLE 16-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR GT
Technology: GT
NOX 0 per MWh
SO2 0.2 per MWh
CO2 120 per MWh
16-7
17. GEOTHERMAL BINARY (BINARY)
17-1
17.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Since the Binary Facility is fueled by a renewable, underground fuel source, an off-site fuel
source, other than incidental plant heating is not required. Water for all processes at the Binary
Facility is obtained from one of several available water sources; however, due to the geography
of most geothermal power plants, water is sourced from on-site wells. Processed wastewater is
generally re-injected, if wells are the source of water, though many Binary facilities utilize ZLD.
Further, the electrical interconnection from the Binary Facility is accomplished by
interconnecting via the plant switchyard into the utility high-voltage transmission system.
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
17-2
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, local technical enhancements
(e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in urban siting), remote location
issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments. It was assumed that geothermal facilities
would only be considered in 13 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Geothermal Facility include
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the GT Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Wyoming.
Table 17-2 presents the GT Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
17-3
TABLE 17-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR GT
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 4,140 17.1% 710 4,850
Alaska Fairbanks 4,140 26.0% 1,075 5,215
Alabama Huntsville 0 0.0% 0 0
Arizona Phoenix 4,140 -3.0% (125) 4,015
Arkansas Little Rock 0 0.0% 0 0
California Los Angeles 4,140 6.5% 270 4,410
California Redding 4,140 2.1% 88 4,228
California Bakersfield 4,140 3.1% 127 4,267
California Sacramento 4,140 5.4% 222 4,362
California San Francisco 4,140 13.4% 553 4,693
Colorado Denver 4,140 -2.7% (112) 4,028
Connecticut Hartford 0 0.0% 0 0
Delaware Dover 0 0.0% 0 0
District of Columbia Washington 0 0.0% 0 0
Florida Tallahassee 0 0.0% 0 0
Florida Tampa 0 0.0% 0 0
Georgia Atlanta 0 0.0% 0 0
Hawaii Honolulu 4,140 28.5% 1,178 5,318
Idaho Boise 4,140 -2.5% (105) 4,035
Illinois Chicago 0 0.0% 0 0
Indiana Indianapolis 0 0.0% 0 0
Iowa Davenport 0 0.0% 0 0
Iowa Waterloo 0 0.0% 0 0
Kansas Wichita 0 0.0% 0 0
Kentucky Louisville 0 0.0% 0 0
Louisiana New Orleans 0 0.0% 0 0
Maine Portland 0 0.0% 0 0
Maryland Baltimore 0 0.0% 0 0
Massachusetts Boston 0 0.0% 0 0
Michigan Detroit 0 0.0% 0 0
Michigan Grand Rapids 0 0.0% 0 0
Minnesota St. Paul 0 0.0% 0 0
Mississippi Jackson 0 0.0% 0 0
Missouri St. Louis 0 0.0% 0 0
Missouri Kansas City 0 0.0% 0 0
Montana Great Falls 0 0.0% 0 0
Nebraska Omaha 0 0.0% 0 0
New Hampshire Concord 0 0.0% 0 0
New Jersey Newark 0 0.0% 0 0
17-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New Mexico Albuquerque 4,140 -1.8% (76) 4,064
New York New York 0 0.0% 0 0
New York Syracuse 0 0.0% 0 0
Nevada Las Vegas 4,140 3.6% 150 4,290
North Carolina Charlotte 0 0.0% 0 0
North Dakota Bismarck 0 0.0% 0 0
Ohio Cincinnati 0 0.0% 0 0
Oregon Portland 4,140 2.0% 81 4,221
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0 0.0% 0 0
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 0 0.0% 0 0
Rhode Island Providence 0 0.0% 0 0
South Carolina Spartanburg 0 0.0% 0 0
South Dakota Rapid City 0 0.0% 0 0
Tennessee Knoxville 0 0.0% 0 0
Texas Houston 0 0.0% 0 0
Utah Salt Lake City 4,140 -2.9% (118) 4,022
Vermont Burlington 0 0.0% 0 0
Virginia Alexandria 0 0.0% 0 0
Virginia Lynchburg 0 0.0% 0 0
Washington Seattle 4,140 3.8% 158 4,298
Washington Spokane 4,140 -1.7% (72) 4,068
West Virginia Charleston 0 0.0% 0 0
Wisconsin Green Bay 0 0.0% 0 0
Wyoming Cheyenne 4,140 -2.6% (106) 4,034
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0.0% 0 0
17.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the
Binary Facility includes major maintenance on the turbines, electric generator (each
approximately every six years) and well field maintenance, which can vary depending on the
Binary Facility resource. Table 17-3 presents the FOM and VOM expenses for the Binary
Facility.
TABLE 17-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR BINARY
Technology: GT
Fixed O&M Expense $43.82/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $5.15/MWh
17-5
17.6ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
Table 17-4 presents environmental emissions for the Binary Facility.
TABLE 17-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR BINARY
Technology: Binary
NOX 0 per MWh
SO2 0.2 per MWh
CO2 120 per MWh
17-6
18. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW)
18-1
18.2ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
The MSW Facility has one ST electric generator. The generator is a 60 Hz machine rated at
approximately 70 MVA with an output voltage of 13.8 kV. The ST electric generator is
connected to a high-voltage bus in the facility switchyard via a dedicated generator circuit
breaker, GSU, high-voltage circuit breaker and a disconnect switch. The GSU increases the
voltage from the electric generator from 13.8 kV to interconnected transmission system high
voltage.
The MSW Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the
facility by integrating the control systems provided with the boiler, ST and associated electric
generator, and the control of BOP systems and equipment.
18.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
MSW is delivered to the facility via rail, truck or barge. Water for all processes at the
MSW Facility can be obtained from one of a variety of sources. The MSW Facility uses a water
treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids
from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for boiler make-up. Wastewater is sent to a
municipal wastewater system or other approved alternative. Further, the electrical
interconnection from the MSW Facility on-site switchyard is effectuated by a connection to an
adjacent utility substation.
18-2
TABLE 18-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR MSW
Technology: MSW
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 50,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): 18,000 Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, local enhancements, remote location
issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the MSW Facility include
18-3
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the MSW Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Table 18-2 presents the MSW Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
TABLE 18-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR MSW
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 8,240 12.8% 1,054 9,294
Alaska Fairbanks 8,240 17.7% 1,459 9,699
Alabama Huntsville 8,240 -5.8% (474) 7,766
Arizona Phoenix 8,240 -4.5% (371) 7,869
Arkansas Little Rock 8,240 -4.7% (387) 7,853
California Los Angeles 8,240 5.2% 430 8,670
California Redding 8,240 1.9% 154 8,394
California Bakersfield 8,240 2.1% 176 8,416
California Sacramento 8,240 5.7% 472 8,712
California San Francisco 8,240 13.4% 1,104 9,344
Colorado Denver 8,240 -4.7% (384) 7,856
Connecticut Hartford 8,240 5.2% 429 8,669
Delaware Dover 8,240 3.1% 258 8,498
District of Columbia Washington 8,240 1.7% 140 8,380
Florida Tallahassee 8,240 -7.9% (649) 7,591
Florida Tampa 8,240 -3.3% (268) 7,972
Georgia Atlanta 8,240 -6.3% (515) 7,725
Hawaii Honolulu 8,240 19.9% 1,638 9,878
Idaho Boise 8,240 -3.8% (315) 7,925
Illinois Chicago 8,240 12.5% 1,033 9,273
Indiana Indianapolis 8,240 -0.9% (78) 8,162
Iowa Davenport 8,240 -1.0% (79) 8,161
Iowa Waterloo 8,240 -6.7% (548) 7,692
Kansas Wichita 8,240 -5.4% (446) 7,794
Kentucky Louisville 8,240 -4.8% (392) 7,848
Louisiana New Orleans 8,240 -7.3% (603) 7,637
Maine Portland 8,240 -4.1% (341) 7,899
Maryland Baltimore 8,240 -1.7% (144) 8,096
18-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Massachusetts Boston 8,240 11.8% 975 9,215
Michigan Detroit 8,240 2.7% 220 8,460
Michigan Grand Rapids 8,240 -5.8% (475) 7,765
Minnesota St. Paul 8,240 2.3% 190 8,430
Mississippi Jackson 8,240 -5.7% (471) 7,769
Missouri St. Louis 8,240 3.0% 247 8,487
Missouri Kansas City 8,240 1.8% 150 8,390
Montana Great Falls 8,240 -4.0% (333) 7,907
Nebraska Omaha 8,240 -3.0% (243) 7,997
New Hampshire Concord 8,240 -2.0% (166) 8,074
New Jersey Newark 8,240 11.9% 984 9,224
New Mexico Albuquerque 8,240 -3.5% (287) 7,953
New York New York 8,240 26.3% 2,167 10,407
New York Syracuse 8,240 -0.4% (31) 8,209
Nevada Las Vegas 8,240 4.5% 370 8,610
North Carolina Charlotte 8,240 -8.3% (688) 7,552
North Dakota Bismarck 8,240 -5.6% (463) 7,777
Ohio Cincinnati 8,240 -3.1% (256) 7,984
Oregon Portland 8,240 1.7% 136 8,376
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 8,240 8.5% 698 8,938
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 8,240 -3.4% (283) 7,957
Rhode Island Providence 8,240 2.8% 229 8,469
South Carolina Spartanburg 8,240 -9.5% (786) 7,454
South Dakota Rapid City 8,240 -7.9% (654) 7,586
Tennessee Knoxville 8,240 -7.3% (603) 7,637
Texas Houston 8,240 -7.3% (598) 7,642
Utah Salt Lake City 8,240 -4.9% (401) 7,839
Vermont Burlington 8,240 -4.4% (364) 7,876
Virginia Alexandria 8,240 -1.8% (148) 8,092
Virginia Lynchburg 8,240 -5.1% (420) 7,820
Washington Seattle 8,240 4.1% 342 8,582
Washington Spokane 8,240 -2.8% (228) 8,012
West Virginia Charleston 8,240 -1.6% (135) 8,105
Wisconsin Green Bay 8,240 -2.3% (186) 8,054
Wyoming Cheyenne 8,240 -4.6% (383) 7,857
Puerto Rico Cayey 8,240 -1.7% (144) 8,096
18.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of this report entitled O&M Estimate, the
MSW Facility includes major maintenance for the feedstock handling, ST, electric generator,
boiler, and BOP systems. Table 18-3 presents the O&M expenses for the MSW Facility.
18-5
TABLE 18-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR MSW
Technology: MSW
Fixed O&M Expense $373.76/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $8.33/MWh
18-6
19. HYDROELECTRIC (HY)
19.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Since the fuel source for the HY Facility is renewable, the most important off-site requirement is
the electrical interconnection to the high-voltage transmission system of the utility, which can be
effectuated through the HY Facility switchyard.
19-1
19.4CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
The base Cost Estimate for the HY Facility with a nominal capacity of 500 MW is $3,076/kW.
Table 19-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the HY Facility.
TABLE 19-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR HY
Technology: HY
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 500,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): Not Applicable
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, local technical enhancements
(e.g., additional noise remediation that is generally required in urban siting), remote location
issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments. The assumption was made that hydroelectric
facilities would only be considered for construction in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota,
and Washington.
19-2
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The locations with local technical enhancements include California, Colorado, Connecticut, and
Delaware. These are areas where technical enhancements generally need to be made by a project
developer or utility to comply with the applicable permitting/siting requirements.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. The remote location related to the Hydroelectric Facility is
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the HY Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Maine,
Ohio, and South Dakota.
Table 19-2 presents the HY Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
19-3
TABLE 19-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR HY
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 3,080 20.1% 619 3,699
Alaska Fairbanks 3,080 31.6% 974 4,054
Alabama Huntsville 0 0.0% 0 0
Arizona Phoenix 0 0.0% 0 0
Arkansas Little Rock 0 0.0% 0 0
California Los Angeles 3,080 7.4% 228 3,308
California Redding 3,080 2.8% 88 3,168
California Bakersfield 3,080 2.4% 75 3,155
California Sacramento 3,080 3.7% 113 3,193
California San Francisco 3,080 13.2% 408 3,488
Colorado Denver 3,080 -1.3% (40) 3,040
Connecticut Hartford 3,080 6.4% 197 3,277
Delaware Dover 0 0.0% 0 0
District of Columbia Washington 0 0.0% 0 0
Florida Tallahassee 0 0.0% 0 0
Florida Tampa 0 0.0% 0 0
Georgia Atlanta 0 0.0% 0 0
Hawaii Honolulu 0 0.0% 0 0
Idaho Boise 3,080 -1.6% (49) 3,031
Illinois Chicago 0 0.0% 0 0
Indiana Indianapolis 0 0.0% 0 0
Iowa Davenport 0 0.0% 0 0
Iowa Waterloo 0 0.0% 0 0
Kansas Wichita 0 0.0% 0 0
Kentucky Louisville 0 0.0% 0 0
Louisiana New Orleans 0 0.0% 0 0
Maine Portland 3,080 -0.8% (23) 3,057
Maryland Baltimore 0 0.0% 0 0
Massachusetts Boston 0 0.0% 0 0
Michigan Detroit 0 0.0% 0 0
Michigan Grand Rapids 0 0.0% 0 0
Minnesota St. Paul 0 0.0% 0 0
Mississippi Jackson 0 0.0% 0 0
Missouri St. Louis 3,080 1.3% 41 3,121
Missouri Kansas City 3,080 1.4% 42 3,122
Montana Great Falls 3,080 -1.2% (37) 3,043
Nebraska Omaha 0 0.0% 0 0
New Hampshire Concord 0 0.0% 0 0
New Jersey Newark 0 0.0% 0 0
New Mexico Albuquerque 0 0.0% 0 0
19-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 0 0.0% 0 0
New York Syracuse 0 0.0% 0 0
Nevada Las Vegas 0 0.0% 0 0
North Carolina Charlotte 0 0.0% 20 3,100
North Dakota Bismarck 0 0.0% 0 0
Ohio Cincinnati 3,080 -1.6% (49) 3,031
Oregon Portland 3,080 4.7% 145 3,225
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0 0.0% 0 0
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 0 0.0% 0 0
Rhode Island Providence 0 0.0% 0 0
South Carolina Spartanburg 0 0.0% 0 0
South Dakota Rapid City 3,080 -3.9% (119) 2,961
Tennessee Knoxville 0 0.0% 0 0
Texas Houston 0 0.0% 0 0
Utah Salt Lake City 0 0.0% 0 0
Vermont Burlington 0 0.0% 0 0
Virginia Alexandria 0 0.0% 0 0
Virginia Lynchburg 0 0.0% 0 0
Washington Seattle 3,080 3.5% 109 3,189
Washington Spokane 3,080 -1.0% (31) 3,049
West Virginia Charleston 0 0.0% 0 0
Wisconsin Green Bay 0 0.0% 0 0
Wyoming Cheyenne 0 0.0% 0 0
Puerto Rico Cayey 0 0.0% 0 0
19.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of the report entitled O&M Estimate, the
most significant differentiating O&M expenses for the HY Facility include dam and associated
civil major maintenance and hydro-turbine major maintenance, which are generally conducted
approximately every ten years. Because HY power plants are typically operated when available,
most operators consider a majority of O&M expenses for this technology to be fixed. Table 19-3
presents the O&M expenses for the HY Facility.
TABLE 19-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR HY
Technology: HY
Fixed O&M Expense $13.44/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
19-5
TABLE 19-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR HY
Technology: HY
NOX 0 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
19-6
20. PUMPED STORAGE (PS)
20.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Similar to the HY Facility, since the fuel source for the PS Facility is renewable, the most
important off-site requirement is the electrical interconnection to the high-voltage transmission
system of the utility, which can be effectuated through the PS switchyard. Unlike the HY
Facility, which uses the backfeed from the utility transmission system only to run required plant
20-1
loads when the hydro-turbines are not operating, significant volumes of electricity are consumed
in off-peak hours at the PS Facility.
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, local technical enhancements, remote
location issues, labor wage and productivity differences, location adjustments, and the increase
in overheads associated with these five adjustments listed. While the analysis shown below
20-2
contemplates cost adjustment factors for each area considered, realistically, there are certain
areas that do not have enough elevation difference to cost effectively produce a pumped storage
plant.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The locations with local technical enhancements include California, Colorado, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These are areas where noise, visual impacts, and other
technical enhancements generally need to be made by a project developer or utility to comply
with the applicable permitting/siting requirements.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Pumped Storage Facility
include Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming;
and Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1., taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the PS Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio; and Wisconsin.
Table 20-2 presents the PS Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
20-3
TABLE 20-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR PS
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 5,595 17.6% 985 6,580
Alaska Fairbanks 5,595 24.7% 1,382 6,977
Alabama Huntsville 5,595 -7.4% (413) 5,182
Arizona Phoenix 5,595 -5.7% (322) 5,273
Arkansas Little Rock 5,595 -6.0% (335) 5,260
California Los Angeles 5,595 7.1% 398 5,993
California Redding 5,595 2.5% 141 5,736
California Bakersfield 5,595 3.0% 166 5,761
California Sacramento 5,595 7.5% 422 6,017
California San Francisco 5,595 17.8% 994 6,589
Colorado Denver 5,595 -5.9% (329) 5,266
Connecticut Hartford 5,595 7.0% 392 5,987
Delaware Dover 5,595 4.3% 243 5,838
District of Columbia Washington 5,595 2.8% 155 5,750
Florida Tallahassee 0 0 0 0
Florida Tampa 0 0 0 0
Georgia Atlanta 5,595 -8.0% (449) 5,146
Hawaii Honolulu 5,595 15.8% 883 6,478
Idaho Boise 5,595 -4.9% (273) 5,322
Illinois Chicago 5,595 16.2% 907 6,502
Indiana Indianapolis 5,595 -1.1% (64) 5,531
Iowa Davenport 5,595 -1.2% (66) 5,529
Iowa Waterloo 5,595 -8.5% (476) 5,119
Kansas Wichita 0 0 0 0
Kentucky Louisville 5,595 -6.1% (341) 5,254
Louisiana New Orleans 5,595 -9.3% (519) 5,076
Maine Portland 5,595 -5.2% (290) 5,305
Maryland Baltimore 5,595 -2.0% (110) 5,485
Massachusetts Boston 5,595 15.5% 869 6,464
Michigan Detroit 5,595 3.5% 196 5,791
Michigan Grand Rapids 5,595 -7.4% (413) 5,182
Minnesota St. Paul 5,595 3.0% 168 5,763
Mississippi Jackson 5,595 -7.3% (410) 5,185
Missouri St. Louis 5,595 4.0% 222 5,817
Missouri Kansas City 5,595 2.4% 136 5,731
Montana Great Falls 5,595 -5.1% (286) 5,309
Nebraska Omaha 5,595 -3.7% (209) 5,386
New Hampshire Concord 5,595 -2.5% (140) 5,455
New Jersey Newark 5,595 15.5% 867 6,462
New Mexico Albuquerque 5,595 -4.4% (245) 5,350
20-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 5,595 34.3% 1,921 7,516
New York Syracuse 5,595 -0.2% (13) 5,582
Nevada Las Vegas 5,595 5.8% 326 5,921
North Carolina Charlotte 5,595 -10.7% (599) 4,996
North Dakota Bismarck 5,595 -7.1% (399) 5,196
Ohio Cincinnati 5,595 -3.9% (220) 5,375
Oregon Portland 5,595 3.1% 171 5,766
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 5,595 11.0% 615 6,210
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 5,595 -4.3% (243) 5,352
Rhode Island Providence 5,595 3.7% 209 5,804
South Carolina Spartanburg 5,595 -12.2% (684) 4,911
South Dakota Rapid City 5,595 -10.2% (569) 5,026
Tennessee Knoxville 5,595 -9.4% (526) 5,069
Texas Houston 5,595 -9.3% (523) 5,072
Utah Salt Lake City 5,595 -6.2% (344) 5,251
Vermont Burlington 5,595 -5.5% (309) 5,286
Virginia Alexandria 5,595 -2.2% (121) 5,474
Virginia Lynchburg 5,595 -6.5% (366) 5,229
Washington Seattle 5,595 5.4% 305 5,900
Washington Spokane 5,595 -3.5% (197) 5,398
West Virginia Charleston 5,595 -2.0% (114) 5,481
Wisconsin Green Bay 5,595 -2.8% (157) 5,438
Wyoming Cheyenne 5,595 -5.8% (324) 5,271
Puerto Rico Cayey 5,595 -1.7% (95) 5,500
20.5O&M ESTIMATE
The O&M discussion in Section 17.5, related to the HY Facility at a high-level is applicable to
the PS Facility, including the fact that most operators budget for a given PS facility on a FOM
expense basis only. The additional areas of O&M that are applicable to the PS Facility that are
not applicable to the HY Facility are pump and associated motor maintenance. Table 20-3
presents the O&M expenses for the PS Facility.
TABLE 20-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR PS
Technology: PS
Fixed O&M Expense $13.03/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
20-5
TABLE 20-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR PS
Technology: PS
NOX 0 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
20-6
21. ONSHORE WIND (WN)
The turbines are each supported by a conical steel tower, which is widest at the base and tapers
in diameter just below the nacelle. A foundation provides the tower with a firm anchor to the
ground. The nacelle is attached to the top of the tower and contains the main mechanical
components of the wind turbine, which include a variable-speed generator, transmission, and
yaw drive. The rotor hub connects to the transmission through one end of the nacelle, and the
rotor is then connected to the hub. The WTG has a three-bladed rotor with a diameter of
77 meters. The WTG has an active yaw system in the nacelle to keep the rotor facing into the
wind.
Power is generated by the wind turbines, then converted using an onboard transformer to
34.5 kV AC. It is then delivered to a collection system at the base of each turbine. Power from
all turbines will be collected by the underground collection circuit.
The collection system supplies power to a new substation designed to step up the voltage to
115 kV for interconnection with the transmission system. Other facility components include
access roads, an O&M building and electrical interconnection facilities. Figure 21-1 presents a
picture of a typical WN Facility.
FIGURE 21-1 – WN DESIGN CONFIGURATION
21-1
21.2ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
The WN Facility has 67 wind turbine-driven electric generators. Each generator is a doubly-fed
induction generator that feeds an AC/DC/AC power converter that provides an output of
three-phase, 60 Hz electrical power. The power output available is approximately 1.75 MVA
with an output voltage of 575 V stepped up to 34.5 kV using a pad-mounted transformer at the
base of the wind turbine. The wind turbine transformers are interconnected on one or more
underground collector circuits that are connected to a collector bus through a circuit breaker for
each circuit. The collector bus is connected to a high-voltage transmission system through the
facility substation, which includes a 34.5 kV switch or circuit breaker, GSU, high-voltage circuit
breaker, and a disconnect switch. The GSU increases the voltage from the electric generator
from 34.5 kV to interconnected transmission system high voltage.
The WN Facility is controlled using a control system generally referred to as the wind farm
supervisory control and data acquisition (“SCADA”) system. The SCADA system provides
centralized control of the facility by integrating the control systems provided with each of the
wind turbines and the control of BOP systems and equipment.
21.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Since wind uses a renewable fuel, the most significant off-site requirements are the construction
of and interconnection to roads and the electrical interconnection to the utility high-voltage
transmission system, as discussed in Section 19.2.
21-2
TABLE 21-1 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WN
Technology: WN
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 100,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, and owner cost differences and the increase in
overheads associated with these five adjustments.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the WN Facility include
21-3
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the WN Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 21-2 presents the WN Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
TABLE 21-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WN
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 2,440 25.2% 615 3,055
Alaska Fairbanks 2,440 45.0% 1,099 3,539
Alabama Huntsville 2,440 -3.5% (86) 2,354
Arizona Phoenix 2,440 -2.4% (58) 2,382
Arkansas Little Rock 2,440 -2.5% (61) 2,379
California Los Angeles 2,440 12.4% 304 2,744
California Redding 2,440 8.2% 200 2,640
California Bakersfield 2,440 10.0% 243 2,683
California Sacramento 2,440 10.5% 257 2,697
California San Francisco 2,440 18.6% 453 2,893
Colorado Denver 2,440 2.2% 54 2,494
Connecticut Hartford 2,440 6.6% 162 2,602
Delaware Dover 2,440 4.6% 111 2,551
District of Columbia Washington 2,440 7.4% 182 2,622
Florida Tallahassee 2,440 -5.3% (128) 2,312
Florida Tampa 2,440 -2.2% (53) 2,387
Georgia Atlanta 2,440 -3.9% (94) 2,346
Hawaii Honolulu 2,440 27.4% 668 3,108
Idaho Boise 2,440 3.4% 83 2,523
Illinois Chicago 2,440 14.2% 346 2,786
Indiana Indianapolis 2,440 0.3% 8 2,448
Iowa Davenport 2,440 4.5% 111 2,551
Iowa Waterloo 2,440 0.7% 18 2,458
Kansas Wichita 2,440 1.9% 46 2,486
Kentucky Louisville 2,440 -2.9% (70) 2,370
21-4
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Louisiana New Orleans 2,440 -5.4% (132) 2,308
Maine Portland 2,440 6.4% 155 2,595
Maryland Baltimore 2,440 1.7% 41 2,481
Massachusetts Boston 2,440 11.1% 270 2,710
Michigan Detroit 2,440 2.7% 67 2,507
Michigan Grand Rapids 2,440 -3.2% (78) 2,362
Minnesota St. Paul 2,440 7.5% 183 2,623
Mississippi Jackson 2,440 -3.5% (85) 2,355
Missouri St. Louis 2,440 3.6% 88 2,528
Missouri Kansas City 2,440 1.7% 41 2,481
Montana Great Falls 2,440 3.9% 95 2,535
Nebraska Omaha 2,440 3.5% 86 2,526
New Hampshire Concord 2,440 5.3% 128 2,568
New Jersey Newark 2,440 10.5% 257 2,697
New Mexico Albuquerque 2,440 3.8% 93 2,533
New York New York 2,440 24.6% 600 3,040
New York Syracuse 2,440 0.8% 20 2,460
Nevada Las Vegas 2,440 9.0% 219 2,659
North Carolina Charlotte 2,440 -4.9% (120) 2,320
North Dakota Bismarck 2,440 2.1% 50 2,490
Ohio Cincinnati 2,440 -1.9% (47) 2,393
Oregon Portland 2,440 8.0% 196 2,636
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,440 6.1% 150 2,590
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 2,440 -1.8% (44) 2,396
Rhode Island Providence 2,440 2.1% 51 2,491
South Carolina Spartanburg 2,440 -5.7% (140) 2,300
South Dakota Rapid City 2,440 0.7% 17 2,457
Tennessee Knoxville 2,440 -4.6% (111) 2,329
Texas Houston 2,440 -4.8% (118) 2,322
Utah Salt Lake City 2,440 3.7% 90 2,530
Vermont Burlington 2,440 3.4% 83 2,523
Virginia Alexandria 2,440 1.9% 46 2,486
Virginia Lynchburg 2,440 -3.1% (75) 2,365
Washington Seattle 2,440 4.4% 107 2,547
Washington Spokane 2,440 4.9% 120 2,560
West Virginia Charleston 2,440 -0.1% (3) 2,437
Wisconsin Green Bay 2,440 -1.0% (25) 2,415
Wyoming Cheyenne 2,440 4.3% 105 2,545
Puerto Rico Cayey 2,440 6.9% 167 2,607
21.5O&M ESTIMATE
In addition to the general items discussed in the section of the report entitled O&M Estimate, the
major areas for O&M for an Onshore Wind Facility include periodic gearbox, WTG, electric
21-5
generator, and associated electric conversion (e.g., GSU) technology repairs and replacement.
These devices typically undergo major maintenance every five to seven years. Table 21-3
presents the O&M expenses for the WN Facility.
TABLE 21-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR WN
Technology: WN
Fixed O&M Expense $28.07/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
21-6
22. OFFSHORE WIND (WF)
The turbines are each supported by a conical steel tower, which is widest at the base and tapers
in diameter just below the nacelle. A foundation provides the tower with a firm anchor to the
ground. The nacelle is attached to the top of the tower and contains the main mechanical
components of the wind turbine, which include a variable-speed generator, transmission, and
yaw drive. The rotor hub connects to the transmission through one end of the nacelle, and the
rotor is then connected to the hub. The WTG has a three-bladed rotor with a diameter of
approximately 125 meters. The WTG has an active yaw system in the nacelle to keep the rotor
facing into the wind. The WF WTG is designed to withstand the conditions of the high seas,
including additional redundancy of key components to enhance availability, corrosion protection
and permanent monitoring.
Power is generated by the wind turbines, then converted using an onboard transformer to
34.5 kV AC. It is then delivered to a collection system at the base of each turbine. Power from
all turbines is collected by the underground collection circuit.
The collection system supplies power to a new substation designed to step up the voltage to
115 kV for interconnection with the transmission system. Figure 22-1 presents a picture of a
currently operating WF Facility.
22-1
FIGURE 22-1 – WF DESIGN CONFIGURATION
22.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Similar to the WF Facility, the most significant off-site requirement for the WF Facility is the
electrical interconnection to the utility transmission system, as discussed directly above.
22-2
22.4CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE
The base Cost Estimate for the WF Facility with a nominal capacity of 400 MW is $5,975/kW.
Table 22-1 summarizes the Cost Estimate categories for the WF Facility.
TABLE 22-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR WF
Technology: WF
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 400,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five location adjustments. The assumption was made that
offshore wind projects would only be constructed offshore of the following states (where
significant offshore wind resource is available): Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Puerto Rico.
22-3
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote locations issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems for construction, because such areas are
long distances from urban areas, where labor is generally abundant. Remote location
designations were also considered in locations where higher equipment freight costs are typically
incurred, which for example are regions not near established rail or highway access. Remote
locations related to the Offshore Wind Facility include Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the WF Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 22-2 presents the WF Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
22-4
TABLE 22-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR WF
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 5,975 15.9% 952 6,927
Alaska Fairbanks 0 0.0%
Alabama Huntsville 0 0.0%
Arizona Phoenix 0 0.0%
Arkansas Little Rock 0 0.0%
California Los Angeles 5,975 7.7% 460 6,435
California Redding 0 0.0%
California Bakersfield 0 0.0%
California Sacramento 0 0.0%
California San Francisco 5,975 16.6% 993 6,968
Colorado Denver 0 0.0%
Connecticut Hartford 5,975 5.7% 342 6,317
Delaware Dover 5,975 3.1% 184 6,159
District of Columbia Washington 5,975 1.8% 110 6,085
Florida Tallahassee 0 0.0%
Florida Tampa 0 0.0%
Georgia Atlanta 5,975 -7.0% (418) 5,557
Hawaii Honolulu 5,975 14.5% 864 6,839
Idaho Boise 0 0.0%
Illinois Chicago 5,975 16.0% 958 6,933
Indiana Indianapolis 5,975 -1.0% (58) 5,917
Iowa Davenport 0 0.0%
Iowa Waterloo 0 0.0%
Kansas Wichita 0 0.0%
Kentucky Louisville 0 0.0%
Louisiana New Orleans 0 0.0%
Maine Portland 5,975 -2.6% (156) 5,819
Maryland Baltimore 5,975 -2.1% (126) 5,849
Massachusetts Boston 5,975 13.2% 787 6,762
Michigan Detroit 5,975 2.8% 165 6,140
Michigan Grand Rapids 5,975 -6.7% (403) 5,572
Minnesota St. Paul 5,975 4.8% 288 6,263
Mississippi Jackson 0 0.0%
Missouri St. Louis 0 0.0%
Missouri Kansas City 0 0.0%
Montana Great Falls 0 0.0%
Nebraska Omaha 0 0.0%
New Hampshire Concord 0 0.0%
New Jersey Newark 5,975 12.7% 761 6,736
New Mexico Albuquerque 0 0.0%
22-5
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 5,975 29.4% 759 7,734
New York Syracuse 5,975 -1.2% (69) 5,906
Nevada Las Vegas 0 0.0%
North Carolina Charlotte 5,975 -9.3% (557) 5,418
North Dakota Bismarck 0 0.0%
Ohio Cincinnati 0 0.0%
Oregon Portland 5,975 5.1% 302 6,277
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 0 0.0%
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 0 0.0%
Rhode Island Providence 5,975 2.5% 48 6,123
South Carolina Spartanburg 5,975 -6.6% (391) 5,584
South Dakota Rapid City 0 0.0%
Tennessee Knoxville 0 0.0%
Texas Houston 5,975 -8.2% (487) 5,488
Utah Salt Lake City 0 0.0%
Vermont Burlington 0 0.0%
Virginia Alexandria 5,975 -2.7% (161) 5,814
Virginia Lynchburg 5,975 -5.7% (340) 5,635
Washington Seattle 5,975 4.8% 287 6,262
Washington Spokane 0 0.0%
West Virginia Charleston 0 0.0%
Wisconsin Green Bay 5,975 -2.7% (164) 5,811
Wyoming Cheyenne 0 0.0%
Puerto Rico Cayey 5,975 -1.2% (72) 5,903
22.5O&M ESTIMATE
The types of maintenance performed on the WF Facility are materially similar to the WN
Facility, discussed in Section 19.5; however, the expenses are higher because maintaining
offshore parts is considerably more complicated, due to staging on ships and with helicopters.
Table 22-3 presents the FOM and VOM expenses for the WF Facility.
TABLE 22-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR WF
Technology: WF
Fixed O&M Expense $53.33/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
22-6
TABLE 22-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR WF
Technology: WF
NOX 0 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
22-7
23. SOLAR THERMAL - CENTRAL STATION (SO)
23-1
FIGURE 23-1 – SO DESIGN CONFIGURATION
23-2
The SO Facility is controlled using a DCS. The DCS provides centralized control of the facility
by integrating the control systems provided with the solar steam generator/superheater/reheater
system, ST and associated electric generator, and the control of BOP systems and equipment.
23.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Natural gas is delivered to the facility through a lateral connected to the local natural gas trunk
line. Water for all processes at the SO Facility is obtained from a one of several available water
sources (e.g., municipal water supply); however, due to the remote location of most solar thermal
power plants, water is often sourced through on-site wells. The SO Facility uses a water
treatment system and a high-efficiency reverse osmosis system to reduce the dissolved solids
from the cooling water and to provide distilled water for HRSG make-up. Processed wastewater
is sent to a municipal wastewater system, re-injected on-site, or an on-site ZLD system. Further,
the electrical interconnection from the SO Facility on-site switchyard is effectuated by a
connection to an adjacent utility substation.
23-3
TABLE 23-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR SO
Technology: SO
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 100,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV (2)
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
(2) Does not include natural gas firing, as such usage is sporadic and highly dependent on time of year and
method of operation.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with the previous five location adjustments.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
23-4
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Solar Thermal Facility
include Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Cayey, Puerto
Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the SO Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 23-2 presents the SO Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S. plant locations.
23-5
TABLE 23-2 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR SO
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 4,700 23.8% 1,119 5,819
Alaska Fairbanks 4,700 35.4% 1,662 6,362
Alabama Huntsville 4,700 -11.3% (532) 4,168
Arizona Phoenix 4,700 -8.9% (417) 4,283
Arkansas Little Rock 4,700 -9.3% (435) 4,265
California Los Angeles 4,700 11.4% 538 5,238
California Redding 4,700 6.3% 297 4,997
California Bakersfield 4,700 6.7% 316 5,016
California Sacramento 4,700 13.3% 623 5,323
California San Francisco 4,700 26.8% 1,261 5,961
Colorado Denver 4,700 -7.3% (344) 4,356
Connecticut Hartford 4,700 9.2% 431 5,131
Delaware Dover 4,700 4.7% 220 4,920
District of Columbia Washington 4,700 1.6% 74 4,774
Florida Tallahassee 4,700 -15.5% (727) 3,973
Florida Tampa 4,700 -6.4% (300) 4,400
Georgia Atlanta 4,700 -12.3% (578) 4,122
Hawaii Honolulu 4,700 39.8% 1,871 6,571
Idaho Boise 4,700 -4.8% (225) 4,475
Illinois Chicago 4,700 26.8% 1,262 5,962
Indiana Indianapolis 4,700 -1.9% (90) 4,610
Iowa Davenport 4,700 0.4% 20 4,720
Iowa Waterloo 4,700 -10.8% (505) 4,195
Kansas Wichita 4,700 -8.3% (392) 4,308
Kentucky Louisville 4,700 -9.4% (440) 4,260
Louisiana New Orleans 4,700 -15.9% (748) 3,952
Maine Portland 4,700 -5.9% (278) 4,422
Maryland Baltimore 4,700 -4.4% (209) 4,491
Massachusetts Boston 4,700 22.2% 1,043 5,743
Michigan Detroit 4,700 4.8% 224 4,924
Michigan Grand Rapids 4,700 -11.8% (554) 4,146
Minnesota St. Paul 4,700 7.2% 340 5,040
Mississippi Jackson 4,700 -11.2% (528) 4,172
Missouri St. Louis 4,700 5.7% 270 4,970
Missouri Kansas City 4,700 3.1% 144 4,844
Montana Great Falls 4,700 -5.3% (248) 4,452
Nebraska Omaha 4,700 -3.5% (165) 4,535
New Hampshire Concord 4,700 -1.7% (80) 4,620
New Jersey Newark 4,700 22.2% 1,042 5,742
New Mexico Albuquerque 4,700 -4.6% (217) 4,483
23-6
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 4,700 50.1% 2,355 7,055
New York Syracuse 4,700 -2.4% (114) 4,586
Nevada Las Vegas 4,700 11.5% 542 5,242
North Carolina Charlotte 4,700 -16.4% (772) 3,928
North Dakota Bismarck 4,700 -8.8% (412) 4,288
Ohio Cincinnati 4,700 -6.6% (310) 4,390
Oregon Portland 4,700 5.9% 277 4,977
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,700 16.1% 758 5,458
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 4,700 -7.3% (341) 4,359
Rhode Island Providence 4,700 4.2% 196 4,896
South Carolina Spartanburg 4,700 -18.8% (882) 3,818
South Dakota Rapid City 4,700 -12.8% (604) 4,096
Tennessee Knoxville 4,700 -14.4% (677) 4,023
Texas Houston 4,700 -14.2% (670) 4,030
Utah Salt Lake City 4,700 -6.9% (325) 4,375
Vermont Burlington 4,700 -7.2% (338) 4,362
Virginia Alexandria 4,700 -4.8% (225) 4,475
Virginia Lynchburg 4,700 -10.0% (471) 4,229
Washington Seattle 4,700 8.0% 377 5,077
Washington Spokane 4,700 -2.7% (127) 4,573
West Virginia Charleston 4,700 -3.3% (155) 4,545
Wisconsin Green Bay 4,700 -4.9% (232) 4,468
Wyoming Cheyenne 4,700 -7.0% (320) 4,371
Puerto Rico Cayey 4,700 -4.0% (190) 4,510
23.5O&M ESTIMATE
The typical O&M expenses for the SO Facility include mirror cleaning, repair, and replacement;
thermal tube replacements; and BOP major maintenance. The BOP major maintenance is similar
to that which is performed on a combined-cycle plant: HRSG, ST, and electric generator major
maintenance, typically performed approximately every seven years. Additionally, most thermal
solar operators do not treat O&M on a variable basis, and consequently, all O&M expenses are
shown below on a fixed basis. Table 23-3 presents the O&M expenses for the SO Facility.
TABLE 23-3 – O&M EXPENSES FOR SO
Technology: SO
Fixed O&M Expense $64.00/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
23-7
TABLE 23-4 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR SO
Technology: SO
NOX 0 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
23-8
24. PHOTOVOLTAIC (CENTRAL STATION) FACILITY (PV)
24-1
of combiner boxes are connected to the input of a 500 kW inverter module, which converts the
aggregate power from DC to three-phase AC electricity at an output voltage of 265 V. The
output voltage of the inverter modules is stepped up to a level of 13.8 kV through a series of
GSUs connected to the modules. Two modules are combined on each of transformer, each of
which is rated 1 MVA. The transformers are connected in groups to form circuits on an
underground collection system. The circuits are connected to a 13.8 kV circuit breaker and then
to the local utility distribution grid.
Each inverter module has its own integral control system. The aggregate of all the modules are
controlled through a SCADA system, typically provided by the inverter manufacturer.
24.3OFF-SITE REQUIREMENTS
Unlike other power technologies discussed in this report, the essential off-site requirement for
which provisions must be made on a PV Facility are water supply (generally in limited
quantities) and an electrical interconnection between the PV Facility switchyard and the local
utility distribution system.
24-2
TABLE 24-1 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PV
Technology: PV
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 7,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
24-3
TABLE 24-2 – BASE PLANT SITE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE FOR PV
Technology: PV
Nominal Capacity (ISO): 150,000 kW
Nominal Heat Rate (ISO): N/A Btu/kWh-HHV
(1) Includes engineering, distributable costs, scaffolding, construction management, and start-up.
For this type of technology and power plant configuration, our regional adjustments took into
consideration the following: seismic design differences, remote location issues, labor wage and
productivity differences, location adjustments, owner cost differences, and the increase in
overheads associated with these five location adjustments.
Seismic design differences among the various locations were based on U.S. seismic map
information that detailed the various seismic zones throughout the U.S. No cost increases were
associated with seismic Zone 0 and cost step increases were considered for Zones 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Remote location issues are related to geographic areas that typically require installation of man
camps, higher craft incentives, and higher per diems are generally required with respect to
construction, due to the fact that such areas are long distances from urban areas, where labor is
generally abundant. Remote location designations were also considered in locations where
higher equipment freight costs are typically incurred, which for example are regions not near
established rail or highway access. Remote locations related to the Photovoltaic Facility include
24-4
Fairbanks, Alaska; Honolulu, Hawaii; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and
Cayey, Puerto Rico.
Labor wage and productivity differences were handled as discussed in Section 2.5.1, taking into
consideration the amount of labor we estimated for the PV Facility.
Location adjustments were made to locations where higher cost of living levels are incurred
and/or where population density generally correlates to higher construction costs for power and
other infrastructure projects. These locations include Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Owner costs were reviewed based on the need for utility upgrades and/or infrastructure costs
such as new facility transmission lines to tie to existing utility transmission substations or
existing transmission lines.
Table 24-3 and Table 24-4 present the PV Facility capital cost variations for alternative U.S.
plant locations.
24-5
TABLE 24-3 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR PV (7 MW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 6,050 16.8% 1,016 7,066
Alaska Fairbanks 6,050 25.6% 1,548 7,598
Alabama Huntsville 6,050 -7.3% (441) 5,609
Arizona Phoenix 6,050 -5.7% (344) 5,706
Arkansas Little Rock 6,050 -5.9% (359) 5,691
California Los Angeles 6,050 8.1% 490 6,540
California Redding 6,050 4.6% 277 6,327
California Bakersfield 6,050 5.0% 301 6,351
California Sacramento 6,050 9.1% 549 6,599
California San Francisco 6,050 18.1% 1,096 7,146
Colorado Denver 6,050 -4.3% (263) 5,787
Connecticut Hartford 6,050 6.2% 376 6,426
Delaware Dover 6,050 3.3% 198 6,248
District of Columbia Washington 6,050 1.6% 96 6,146
Florida Tallahassee 6,050 -10.0% (605) 5,445
Florida Tampa 6,050 -4.1% (250) 5,800
Georgia Atlanta 6,050 -7.9% (480) 5,570
Hawaii Honolulu 6,050 29.9% 1,812 7,862
Idaho Boise 6,050 -2.7% (162) 5,888
Illinois Chicago 6,050 17.8% 1,075 7,125
Indiana Indianapolis 6,050 -1.2% (70) 5,980
Iowa Davenport 6,050 0.6% 38 6,088
Iowa Waterloo 6,050 -6.6% (399) 5,651
Kansas Wichita 6,050 -5.0% (303) 5,747
Kentucky Louisville 6,050 -6.0% (364) 5,686
Louisiana New Orleans 6,050 -10.3% (622) 5,428
Maine Portland 6,050 -3.4% (203) 5,847
Maryland Baltimore 6,050 -2.6% (158) 5,892
Massachusetts Boston 6,050 14.6% 885 6,935
Michigan Detroit 6,050 3.1% 188 6,238
Michigan Grand Rapids 6,050 -7.6% (461) 5,589
Minnesota St. Paul 6,050 5.1% 308 6,358
Mississippi Jackson 6,050 -7.2% (438) 5,612
Missouri St. Louis 6,050 3.9% 233 6,283
Missouri Kansas City 6,050 2.0% 123 6,173
Montana Great Falls 6,050 -2.9% (178) 5,872
Nebraska Omaha 6,050 -1.9% (114) 5,936
New Hampshire Concord 6,050 -0.7% (42) 6,008
New Jersey Newark 6,050 14.4% 869 6,919
New Mexico Albuquerque 6,050 -2.5% (154) 5,896
24-6
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 6,050 32.9% 1,988 8,038
New York Syracuse 6,050 -1.4% (86) 5,964
Nevada Las Vegas 6,050 7.9% 476 6,526
North Carolina Charlotte 6,050 -10.6% (640) 5,410
North Dakota Bismarck 6,050 -5.3% (318) 5,732
Ohio Cincinnati 6,050 -4.2% (256) 5,794
Oregon Portland 6,050 4.3% 260 6,310
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 6,050 10.5% 634 6,684
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 6,050 -4.6% (281) 5,769
Rhode Island Providence 6,050 2.7% 166 6,216
South Carolina Spartanburg 6,050 -12.1% (731) 5,319
South Dakota Rapid City 6,050 -7.9% (477) 5,573
Tennessee Knoxville 6,050 -9.3% (562) 5,488
Texas Houston 6,050 -9.2% (557) 5,493
Utah Salt Lake City 6,050 -4.0% (240) 5,810
Vermont Burlington 6,050 -4.2% (256) 5,794
Virginia Alexandria 6,050 -3.1% (185) 5,865
Virginia Lynchburg 6,050 -6.5% (391) 5,659
Washington Seattle 6,050 5.3% 322 6,372
Washington Spokane 6,050 -1.3% (81) 5,969
West Virginia Charleston 6,050 -2.0% (124) 5,926
Wisconsin Green Bay 6,050 -3.1% (190) 5,860
Wyoming Cheyenne 6,050 -4.0% (240) 5,810
Puerto Rico Cayey 6,050 -1.9% (117) 5,933
24-7
TABLE 24-4 – LOCATION-BASED COSTS FOR PV (150 MW)
(OCTOBER 1, 2010 DOLLARS)
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
Alaska Anchorage 4,755 19.9% 947 5,702
Alaska Fairbanks 4,755 30.9% 1,470 6,225
Alabama Huntsville 4,755 -8.0% (379) 4,376
Arizona Phoenix 4,755 -6.2% (294) 4,461
Arkansas Little Rock 4,755 -6.5% (307) 4,448
California Los Angeles 4,755 9.6% 458 5,213
California Redding 4,755 5.5% 263 5,018
California Bakersfield 4,755 6.1% 291 5,046
California Sacramento 4,755 10.5% 498 5,253
California San Francisco 4,755 20.7% 985 5,740
Colorado Denver 4,755 -4.4% (208) 4,547
Connecticut Hartford 4,755 7.1% 339 5,094
Delaware Dover 4,755 3.8% 183 4,938
District of Columbia Washington 4,755 2.3% 111 4,866
Florida Tallahassee 4,755 -11.0% (522) 4,233
Florida Tampa 4,755 -4.5% (216) 4,539
Georgia Atlanta 4,755 -8.7% (413) 4,342
Hawaii Honolulu 4,755 37.2% 1,771 6,526
Idaho Boise 4,755 -2.5% (119) 4,636
Illinois Chicago 4,755 19.9% 949 5,704
Indiana Indianapolis 4,755 -1.2% (57) 4,698
Iowa Davenport 4,755 1.1% 51 4,806
Iowa Waterloo 4,755 -6.9% (327) 4,428
Kansas Wichita 4,755 -5.1% (242) 4,513
Kentucky Louisville 4,755 -6.6% (313) 4,442
Louisiana New Orleans 4,755 -11.3% (537) 4,218
Maine Portland 4,755 -3.2% (152) 4,603
Maryland Baltimore 4,755 -2.6% (124) 4,631
Massachusetts Boston 4,755 16.4% 778 5,533
Michigan Detroit 4,755 3.4% 163 4,918
Michigan Grand Rapids 4,755 -8.4% (398) 4,357
Minnesota St. Paul 4,755 6.0% 286 5,041
Mississippi Jackson 4,755 -7.9% (377) 4,378
Missouri St. Louis 4,755 4.4% 208 4,963
Missouri Kansas City 4,755 2.3% 109 4,864
Montana Great Falls 4,755 -2.7% (130) 4,625
Nebraska Omaha 4,755 -1.7% (79) 4,676
New Hampshire Concord 4,755 -0.3% (15) 4,740
New Jersey Newark 4,755 15.8% 751 5,506
New Mexico Albuquerque 4,755 -2.3% (111) 4,644
24-8
Base
Project Location Delta Cost Total Location
Cost Percent Difference Project Cost
State City ($/kW) Variation ($/kW) ($/kW)
New York New York 4,755 36.6% 1,739 6,494
New York Syracuse 4,755 -1.4% (68) 4,687
Nevada Las Vegas 4,755 9.1% 432 5,187
North Carolina Charlotte 4,755 -11.6% (549) 4,206
North Dakota Bismarck 4,755 -5.3% (254) 4,501
Ohio Cincinnati 4,755 -4.6% (220) 4,535
Oregon Portland 4,755 5.2% 249 5,004
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 4,755 11.6% 550 5,305
Pennsylvania Wilkes-Barre 4,755 -5.0% (240) 4,515
Rhode Island Providence 4,755 3.1% 146 4,901
South Carolina Spartanburg 4,755 -13.2% (628) 4,127
South Dakota Rapid City 4,755 -8.2% (392) 4,363
Tennessee Knoxville 4,755 -10.2% (483) 4,272
Texas Houston 4,755 -10.1% (481) 4,274
Utah Salt Lake City 4,755 -3.8% (183) 4,572
Vermont Burlington 4,755 -4.2% (201) 4,554
Virginia Alexandria 4,755 -3.3% (159) 4,596
Virginia Lynchburg 4,755 -7.1% (336) 4,419
Washington Seattle 4,755 6.0% 284 5,039
Washington Spokane 4,755 -1.0% (49) 4,706
West Virginia Charleston 4,755 -2.2% (103) 4,652
Wisconsin Green Bay 4,755 -3.4% (161) 4,594
Wyoming Cheyenne 4,755 -3.8% (180) 4,575
Puerto Rico Cayey 4,755 -1.4% (68) 4,687
24.5O&M ESTIMATE
The significant O&M items for a PV Facility include periodic inverter maintenance and periodic
panel water washing. Additionally, most thermal solar operators do not treat O&M on a variable
basis, and consequently, all O&M expenses are shown below on a fixed basis. Table 24-5 and
Table 24-6 present the O&M expenses for the PV Facility.
TABLE 24-5 – O&M EXPENSES FOR PV FACILITY (7 MW)
Technology: PV
Fixed O&M Expense $26.40/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
TABLE 24-6 – O&M EXPENSES FOR PV FACILITY (150 MW)
Technology: PV
Fixed O&M Expense $16.70/kW-year
Variable O&M Expense $0/MWh
24-9
24.6ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INFORMATION
Table 24-7 presents environmental emissions for the PV Facility.
TABLE 24-7 – ENVIRONMENTAL EMISSIONS FOR PV
Technology: Photovoltaic
NOX 0 lb/MMBtu
SO2 0 lb/MMBtu
CO2 0 lb/MMBtu
24-10