PRODUCTION COST MODEL DATA WORK GROUP - PDWG MEETING - Intertek Data_Novembe… · POWER PLANT...

PRODUCTION COST MODEL DATA WORK GROUP - PDWG MEETING

Nikhil Kumar [email protected]

Intertek Engineering Consulting

WECC

mailto:[email protected]

Intertek Engineering Consulting Engineering | Failure Analysis | Technology Intertek Engineering Consulting Engineering | Failure Analysis | Technology

OUR GLOBAL NETWORK AND CAPABILITIES

2

100+countries

Global MarketLeader in TIC

1,000+laboratoriesand offices

100,000audits

Global Market

Leader inAssurance

3,000auditors

Global ATIC Business with over 42,000 Employees, with a Market Cap. Of $10B+

Intertek Engineering Consulting Engineering | Failure Analysis | Technology

OUR HERITAGE

3

Virginius Daniel Moody establishes Moody Engineering for construction and engineering projects in the US, later moving into oil and gas testing and certification

Caleb Brett founds a marine surveying and cargo certification business in the UK

Intertek acquires APTECH Engineering to expand its Industrial Services offering, with focus on Engineering and Failure Analysis.

Thomas Edison sets up the Lamp Testing Bureau in the US (this later becomes the Electrical Testing Laboratories or ETL – a mark that Intertek still applies today)

1911 20171885

20121886 2009

ATI (AWARE) joins Intertek Industry Service. Intertek adds Asset Integrity Management Software to its portfolio.

Do not duplicate or distribute without written permission


INTRODUCTION & PROBLEM STATEMENT

4

• Why do we need to understand power plant cycling costs?

• A major root cause of this increase in Capital and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) cost for many fossil units is unit cycling.

• Utilities have been forced to cycle aging fossil units that were originally designed for base load operation.

• What can and should we do once we understand these costs?

Generation Units Originally Designed for Baseload Operations Running in Cycling Modes



OUR VIEWPOINT

5

• Almost any unit can be cycled.

• This can be done with minimal capital investment.

• However, we have to account for:

• Long term penalty of increased wear & tear damage and reduced reliability.

• Short term penalty of higher heat rate, increased O&M, training requirements, and equipment efficiency.

• Component Damage can be determined

• Understand amount of damage present

• Rate of accumulation

• Total damage before failure

• Cycling a power plant is more difficult operating mode than baseload operation.



IMPACT OF FLEXIBLE GENERATION ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

6

Maintenance/Overhaul Costs

Forced Outage Rates

Emissions Per MWh Generated

Long Term Production Cost

Long-Term Capacity Costs

Revenue

Plant Performance (efficiency)

Capacity Factors

Short Term – Production Cost

Unit Life Expectancies



PRESSING BASE-LOAD UNITS INTO CYCLIC OPERATION?

• Consider the following:

• Cycle chemistry

• Thermally induced cyclic stress

• Extent of fatigue damage

• Nature & frequency of the transients

• Thermal gradient of the components

• Material properties

• Strain softening significantly changes a materials strength

• Damage is difficult to identify

7



DAMAGE MECHANISMS – SYSTEM

8


Previous Work Summary (2011 Project)

9


DELIVERABLES

Intertek to provide Power Plant Cycling Cost inputs with high and low bounds:

• For 8 distinct groups of power plants,

• Costs will include (original scope):

• Load Following Costs (Minimum to Maximum Load)

• Forced Outage Rates as a function of increased cycling

• Hot, Warm, and Cold Start Costs

• Base-load Variable operation and maintenance (VOM) costs

• Startup Cost – Fuel and (Aux. Power + Chemicals + Water)

• Long Term Heat Rate effects due to Power Plant Cycling

• High Bound costs will be not be publicly available and are covered by a NDA.

10



POWER PLANT GROUPS

Upper and Lower Bound Costs for eight power plant groups:

1. Small coal-fired sub-critical steam (35-299 MW)

2. Large coal-fired sub-critical steam (300-900 MW)

3. Large coal-fired supercritical steam (500-1300 MW)

4. Gas-fired combined cycle (CT-HRSG and ST)

5. Gas-fired simple cycle large frame (7F/9F, N11, V94.3A and similar types)

6. Gas-fired simple cycle Aero-Derivative CT (LM 6000, 5000, 2500)

7. Gas-fired steam (50-700 MW)

8. Lowest cycling cost power plants – due to design and operation

11



METHODOLOGY

12



CHARACTERIZING DAMAGE & COSTS

13

Cold Start EHS

Warm Start EHS

Hot Start EHS

Significant Load Following EHS

Mild Load Following EHS

Start/Stop

Load Following

Baseload

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cycling $



ESTIMATING LOW BOUND START COST

14



ESTIMATING BASE LOAD VOM COST

15



COST OF FLEXIBLE GENERATION

16

0

100

200

300

400

Sta

rt C

&M

Lo

w E

stim

ate

(C

Y 2

01

1 $

/MW

)

10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

MW capacity (log scale)

hot starts warm starts cold starts

hot outliers warm outliers cold outliers

Points are 'jittered' <5% to try to show all units.

Plots all unit types together, but usesindividual unit type box plots to identify outliers

Low Bound C&M Start Costs per MW Capacity

Power Plant Cycling Costs, N. Kumar et al., Intertek (April 2012). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf

Lower bound costs. Actual Costs are significantly different.


http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf


INTERTEK ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

WECCUncertainty

BoundsReconcileAnalysis

Cost of Flexible Generation

Top Down (Historical + Latent

Damage / Cost)

Best Estimate

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

75th Percentile

Median

25th percentile

Outliers

Bottom Up (Historical Damage/

Cost)

17



LOWER BOUND – START COST

18

5

10

20

50

100

200

Hot

Sta

rt C

&M

Lo

w E

stim

ate

(C

Y 2

011

$/M

W)

1: C

oal -

Small S

ub C

ritica

l

2: C

oal -

Larg

e Su

b Criti

cal

3: C

oal -

Supe

r Criti

cal

4: G

as - CC [G

T+HRSG

+ST]

5: G

as - La

rge Fr

ame CT

6: G

as - Ae

ro D

eriva

tive CT

7: G

as - St

eam

Hot Start Cost Lower Bounds-Includes Outliers(Maintenance and capital cost per MW capacity)

0

100

200

300

Wa

rm S

tart

C&

M L

ow

Estim

ate

(C

Y 2

01

1 $

/MW

)

1: C

oal -

Small S

ub C

ritica

l

2: C

oal -

Larg

e Su

b Criti

cal

3: C

oal -

Supe

r Criti

cal

4: G

as - CC [G

T+HRSG

+ST]

5: G

as - La

rge Fr

ame CT

6: G

as - Ae

ro D

eriva

tive CT

7: G

as - St

eam

Warm Start Cost Lower Bounds-Includes Outliers(Maintenance and capital cost per MW capacity)

0

100

200

300

400

Cold

Sta

rt C

&M

Lo

w E

stim

ate

(C

Y 2

011

$/M

W)

1: C

oal -

Small S

ub C

ritica

l

2: C

oal -

Larg

e Su

b Criti

cal

3: C

oal -

Supe

r Criti

cal

4: G

as - CC [G

T+HRSG

+ST]

5: G

as - La

rge Fr

ame CT

6: G

as - Ae

ro D

eriva

tive CT

7: G

as - St

eam

Cold Start Cost Lower Bounds-Includes Outliers(Maintenance and capital cost per MW capacity)



LOWER BOUND RELIABILITY IMPACTS

19

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

Hot

Sta

rt E

FO

R I

ncre

ase (

add

ed

%)

1: C

oal -

Small S

ub C

ritica

l

2: C

oal -

Larg

e Su

b Criti

cal

3: C

oal -

Supe

r Criti

cal

4: G

as - CC [G

T+HRSG

+ST]

5: G

as - La

rge Fr

ame CT

6: G

as - Ae

ro D

eriva

tive CT

7: G

as - St

eam

Hot Start EFOR Impact Lower Bounds-with Outliers(added % to one year's EFOR)

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05W

arm

Sta

rt E

FO

R I

ncre

ase

(ad

de

d %

)

1: C

oal -

Small S

ub C

ritica

l

2: C

oal -

Larg

e Su

b Criti

cal

3: C

oal -

Supe

r Criti

cal

4: G

as - CC [G

T+HRSG

+ST]

5: G

as - La

rge Fr

ame CT

6: G

as - Ae

ro D

eriva

tive CT

7: G

as - St

eam

Warm Start EFOR Impact Lower Bounds-with Outliers(added % to one year's EFOR)

0

.02

.04

.06

Cold

Sta

rt E

FO

R I

ncre

ase (

add

ed

%)

1: C

oal -

Small S

ub C

ritica

l

2: C

oal -

Larg

e Su

b Criti

cal

3: C

oal -

Supe

r Criti

cal

4: G

as - CC [G

T+HRSG

+ST]

5: G

as - La

rge Fr

ame CT

6: G

as - Ae

ro D

eriva

tive CT

7: G

as - St

eam

Cold Start EFOR Impact Lower Bounds-with Outliers(added % to one year's EFOR)



LOWER BOUND RESULTS

Unit Types

Coal - Small Sub

Critical

Coal - Large Sub

Critical

Coal - Super

Critical

Gas - CC

[GT+HRSG+ST]

Gas - Large

Frame CT

Gas - Aero

Derivative CT Gas - Steam

Cost Item/

Typical Hot Start Data

-C&M cost ($/MW cap.)

Median 94 59 54 35 32 19 36

~25th_centile 79 39 39 28 22 12 25

~75th_centile 131 68 63 56 47 61 42

-EFOR Impact

Median 0.0086% 0.0057% 0.0037% 0.0025% 0.0020% 0.0073% 0.0029%

~25th_centile 0.0045% 0.0035% 0.0030% 0.0021% 0.0007% 0.0038% 0.0016%

~75th_centile 0.0099% 0.0082% 0.0065% 0.0070% 0.0142% 0.0186% 0.0060%

Typical Warm Start Data


Median 157 65 64 55 126 24 58

~25th_centile 112 55 54 32 26 12 36

~75th_centile 181 78 89 93 145 61 87

-EFOR Impact

Median 0.0123% 0.0070% 0.0054% 0.0039% 0.0027% 0.0073% 0.0048%

~25th_centile 0.0058% 0.0041% 0.0037% 0.0023% 0.0007% 0.0038% 0.0026%

~75th_centile 0.0156% 0.0081% 0.0095% 0.0083% 0.0162% 0.0186% 0.0081%

Typical Cold Start Data


Median 147 105 104 79 103 32 75

~25th_centile 87 63 73 46 31 12 54

~75th_centile 286 124 120 101 118 61 89

-EFOR Impact

Median 0.0106% 0.0088% 0.0088% 0.0055% 0.0035% 0.0088% 0.0060%

~25th_centile 0.0085% 0.0047% 0.0059% 0.0033% 0.0007% 0.0038% 0.0043%

~75th_centile 0.0163% 0.0150% 0.0101% 0.0088% 0.0116% 0.0195% 0.0123%

Startup Time (hours)

-Typical (Warm Start Offline Hours) 4 to 24 12 to 40 12 to 72

5 to 40 (ST

Different) 2 to 3 0 to 1 4 to 48

20



LOWER BOUND RESULTS

Unit Types

Coal - Small Sub

Critical

Coal - Large Sub

Critical

Coal - Super

Critical

Gas - CC

[GT+HRSG+ST]

Gas - Large

Frame CT

Gas - Aero

Derivative CT Gas - Steam

Typical Load Follows Data

-C&M cost ($/MW cap.) - Typical Ramp Rate

Median 3.34 2.45 1.96 0.64 1.59 0.63 1.92

~25th_centile 1.91 1.40 1.52 0.30 0.94 0.42 1.17

~75th_centile 3.84 3.10 2.38 0.74 2.80 1.70 2.32

Range of Load Follow (%GDC)

-Typical Range (%GDC) 32% 35% 30% 20% 27% 20% (Some 50%) 32%

-Multiplying Factor - Faster Ramp Rate (1.1 to 2x)

Range* 2 to 8 1.5 to 10 1.5 to 10 1.2 to 4 1.2 to 4 1 to 1.2 1.2 to 6

Typical Non-cycling Related Costs

- Baseload Variable Cost ($/MWH)

Median 2.82 2.68 2.96 1.02 0.57 0.66 0.92

~25th_centile 1.52 1.62 2.48 0.85 0.48 0.27 0.66

~75th_centile 3.24 3.09 3.40 1.17 0.92 0.80 1.42

Note: Multiplying factor - increase in load follow cost (damage) from a faster ramp rate

21



Updates and What’s Changed?

22


BEYOND THE CYCLING COSTS, ASSET RISK

23

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 40

Ou

tage

Rat

e

Age (years)

Reliability Trends

FOR EFOR EFORd

Source: Power Plant Cycling Costs, N. Kumar et al., Intertek (April 2012). http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf

Age Age & Cycling High Impact Low Probability

Source: Intertek Engineering Technical Paper 214


http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55433.pdf


OPPORTUNITY [PHYSICAL ASSET]

24

Source: Impact of plant cycling on availability, N. Kumar et al., ASME Power 2015, POWER2015-49359

In a flexible regime, design matters!



SURVEY

25

Size (MW)Current Min. Load

Potential Min. Load

65 23% 8%

70 43% 21%

254 35% 24%

258 52% 35%

267 34% 22%

446 28% 22%

524 46% 38%

880 40% 28%

Source: “Low Load/Low Air Flow Optimum Control Applications,” TR-111541. Electric Power Research Institute. Section 3-4. Web. June 21 2010

Example Improvements in Minimum Load Retrofits

Source: F.H. Fenton. “Survey of Cyclic Load Capabilities of Fossil-Steam, Generating Units”. IEEE Transactions on Power Appartus and Systems, Vol. PAS-101, No 6 June 1982.

1982 EPRI Survey Results

Capacity (MW) Design

Avg. Ramp Rate (%/min)

Max. Ramp Rate (%/min)

180 Sub-Critical 1.8% 3.6%





420 Super-Critical 1.3% 4.3%







SH Header Failures Water hammer FAC in HP secondary SH drain

Combined effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue cracking with initiation at the OD and cracking due to thermal shock with initiation at the ID inside the bore holes of the superheat header. [P22]

Steam Bypass line to condenser hanger damage, water hammer during cycles. Cold Start Ramp Rate was in excess of 2500 F/hr., while Hot Start Rate was 1500 F/hr.Operational countermeasures were implemented to ensure that high thermal ramp rate cycles are bypassed to the condenser.

Cold Start – condensate is in FAC range.

Carbon Steel material.Carbon Steel changed to P22

COMBINED CYCLE FAILURE INVESTIGATION



ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION

27

CRH Failure – Testimony at PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OREGON



SPENDING, OR LACK THERE OF?

28

Real O&M for all plants and weighted by generation has decreased from 1988-2005 and has leveled out since.

Source: Power Plant Spending in U.S. – Trends and Impact, Intertek TP 305, Nikhil Kumar & Phil Besuner



10 YEAR TIME HORIZON – WHAT’S HAPPENED SO FAR

29

Source: Impact of Large-Scale Wind & Solar Integration on Existing Fossil Generation in United States, Kumar et al., 15th Wind Integration Workshop, Vienna (2016)



CHARACTERIZING PLANT CYCLING – OPERATING RANGE

30

Fossil generating units are staying offline for more hours – but…



@ Full Load@ Full Load

@ Full Load


CHARACTERIZING PLANT CYCLING – DAILY LOAD VARIATION

31

Duck curve in CA, limited impact in TX, reduced fossil generation in IA.




CHARACTERIZING PLANT CYCLING – STARTS & SIGNIFICANT LOAD FOLLOWING

32

Significant Load Follow is a MW Change > 20% capacity.



START PROFILE

33

A cold start on a fossil plant is far more damaging than a hot start →more cost.

Hours offline defines hot, warm and cold start definition. Different for each unit type and size.

Trend of increasing offline hours reflected more clearly in IA and CA.



EVOLVING OPERATING REGIME

34

Size matters, but units are forced to change operating profiles (coal). Gas unit capacity factors continue to trend higher!




CA FLEET

35

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Combined Cycle GT Conventional Gas Steam

Simple Cycle GT

An

nu

al S

tart

s

YearGraphs by Unit type

Annual starts for Key California Units

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Year

Annual EHS; 87% increase Annual Starts; 123% increase

Adjusted for missing hourly data

Summed Annual EHS and Starts for all California Units

0

100

200

300

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Year

EHS per TWhr generation; 68% low-to-high increase

Starts per TWhr generation; 109% low-to-high increase

Adjusted for missing hourly data

Summed Annual EHS and Starts per TWhr generation for all California Units

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Combined Cycle GT Conventional Gas Steam

Simple Cycle GT

An

nu

al E

HS

YearGraphs by Unit type

Annual EHS for Key California Units

Simple cycle GT providing most of the flexibility.Source: Impact of Large-Scale Wind & Solar Integration on Existing Fossil Generation in United States, Kumar et al., 15th Wind Integration Workshop, Vienna (2016)



BOTTOM LINE - UNIT CYCLING DAMAGE [2005-15]

36

CA and TX Fleets have cycled more → Increased Cycling Related O&M CostSource: Impact of Large-Scale Wind & Solar Integration on Existing Fossil Generation in United States, Kumar et al., 15th Wind Integration Workshop, Vienna (2016)



PJM RE StudySo, where are we today?

37


PJM RENEWABLE INTEGRATION STUDY

38

• Perform a comprehensive renewable power integration study to:

• Determine, for the PJM balancing area, the operational, planning, and energy market effects of large-scale integration of wind power as well as mitigation/facilitation measures available to PJM.

• Make recommendations for the implementation of such mitigation/facilitation measures.

• This study was initiated at the request of PJM stakeholders.

• Data Sources:

• The study used a combination of publicly available and confidential data to model the Eastern Interconnection, the PJM grid, and its power plants.

Project Team

Source: https://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/subcommittees/irs/pris.aspx


https://www.pjm.com/committees-and-groups/subcommittees/irs/pris.aspx


TECHNICAL APPROACH/TASKS

• Hourly Production Simulation (PJM + Rest of EI)

• Transmission Overlay Analysis

• Sub-Hourly Simulation of Interesting Days

• Real-Time Market Performance

• Renewable Capacity Valuation

• Statistical Analysis of Load and Renewable Data

• Reserve Analysis

• Review of industry practice/experience with integration of wind/solar resources

• Power Plant Cycling Cost Analysis

• Power Plant Cycling Emissions Analysis

39



PJM GENERATION MIX

40

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Coal Gas Oil Nuclear Renewables

*Renewable include – Hydro, Wind, Solar, Other



CLEARLY CYCLING OPERATION IS INCREASING

41

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Starts

90th Percentile Median

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Significant Load Following

90th Percentile Median


From Scenarios to the Present – An analysis of the PJM Renewable Integration Study in 2019, N. Kumar, EPRI Flexible Operation Conference 2019


AVERAGE ANNUAL STARTS FOR COAL & GAS UNITS

42

36 % Increase

13% Increase

EIA: About half of the 21 GW of natural gas-fired generation capacity expected to come online by the end of 2018 are combined-cycle units to be added to PJM!




FOR THE LARGER UNITS, TREND IS MODEST

43




MAKES SENSE, AN EXPECTED TREND

44




SMALL COAL IS CYCLING SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

45




NORMALIZING CYCLING OPERATION

46

55 % Increase from 135 EHS/Yr.

25 % Increase from 52 EHS/Yr.




What else is new?New Scope for 2019/2020 Update

47


CONSIDERATIONS

48

• New technologies and capabilities

• Operating profiles

• Retirements

• Limit units in WI or rest of U.S.?

Control for:

• Age

• Size

• Vintage

• Location

• Operating Regime

Pay attention to nonlinearity!Adding 30% EHS/year (1.3x) shortens life by 11 years, but subtracting 30% EHS/year (0.7x) adds 22 years to the life.


Source: Power Plant Spending in U.S. – Trends and Impact, Intertek TP 305, Nikhil Kumar & Phil Besuner


GE – LMS 100 MACHINES

49

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 40 50 100 105 110

Freq

uen

cy

MW Range

Panoche 1-4, MW Range (2009-11)

Panoche-1 Panoche-2 Panoche-3 Panoche-4

Site City State CT Model Year (Start)

Walnut Creek Energy

Park

City of Industry (LA County) CA LMS100 2013

Panoche Firebaugh (Fresno County) CA LMS100 2009

Sentinel Energy

Project

Desert Hot Springs (Riverside

County)

CA LMS100 2013

Haynes Long Beach CA LMS100 2013

Type Capabilities

Normal start-up time 10 minutes

Non-spin start-up time 10 minutes

Maximum number of daily start-ups 4/day

Maximum number of annual start-ups 500/year

Minimum run time 30 minutes per dispatch

Minimum down time 20 minutes from shutdown to next start

Minimum operating level 50 MW



HIGH EFFICIENCY GAS TURBINES

50

• Current development in gas turbine technology is producing more powerful and efficient engines.

• Aiding in these advances is the development of advanced base materials with superior high-temperature strength and thermal barrier coatings that protect the structural material from ever-higher temperatures.

• [2012] GE Launches the Flex Efficiency 60* Combined Cycle Power Plant for 60 Hz Regions that Can Provide More than 61% Combined Cycle Efficiency

• [2016] A 1,600°C class 50-Hz M701J comes into commercial operation in Unit 2 at the Kawasaki Power Station of TEPCO Fuel & Power, Inc.



PROJECT METHODOLOGY – BASELINE CRITERIA

51



DELIVERABLES

52

• Categories of Units• Small coal-fired sub-critical steam (35-299 MW)

• Large coal-fired sub-critical steam (300-900 MW)

• Large coal-fired supercritical steam (500-1300 MW)

• Gas-fired combined cycle plants (CT-ST and HRSG)

• Gas-fired simple cycle large frame (GE 7/9, N11, V94.3A and similar types)

• Gas-fired simple cycle Aero-Derivative CT (LM 6000, 5000, 2500). New data set to include, New Fast Start Gas Turbines – Aero-Derivative (LMS 100 and similar)

• Gas-fired steam (50-700 MW)

• Gas-fired combined cycle plants (CT-ST and HRSG) –High Efficiency Gas Turbines (H Class and Similar)

• Gas-fired combined cycle plants (CT-ST and HRSG) –Fast Start

• Gas Reciprocating Engines (Wartsila and similar)

• Output of Analysis• Task 1 — Hot, Warm, and Cold Start costs

Costs in units of 2020 dollars per start for hot, warm and cold starts. These costs will inherently include all cycling-related costs (except forced outage costs).

Intertek will also update the table with new ramping capabilities, minimum up and down time, startup time for the different generation technologies and the corresponding cost impacts.

• Task 2 — Load Following costs Costs in units of 2020 dollars for various load following modes – mild, significant and operation at minimum load. Minimum load operation to be evaluated may be at approximately 80%, 50%, and 30% of maximum load. Units that are unable to operate below any minimum load operation described above will be noted. These costs will inherently include all cycling-related costs (except forced outage costs).

Intertek will also update the table with new ramping capabilities including cost impacts.

• Task 3 — Base-Loaded Variable O&M (VOM) Costs

• Task 4 — Forced Outage Rates (FOR)



THANK YOU!

53


Nikhil KumarManaging Director, Intertek Engineering [email protected] | (408) 636-5340

mailto:[email protected]

PRODUCTION COST MODEL DATA WORK GROUP - PDWG MEETING - Intertek Data_Novembe… · POWER PLANT...

Documents

Transcript of PRODUCTION COST MODEL DATA WORK GROUP - PDWG MEETING - Intertek Data_Novembe… · POWER PLANT...