A Financial Feasibility Screening Model for small Coal Fired Thermal Power Stations for sizes between 600

kWe and 5,000 kWe

April 1998

For MTNT, Limited And McGrath Light and Power and The State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of Energy and Energy and Environmental Research Center University of North Dakota

by J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska and Energy and Environmental Research Center University of North Dakota Grand Forks, ND

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

List of Figures Figure 1 Flow Schematic 5

List of Tables Table 1 Model Input Descriptions and Values Table 2 - Listing of Community Utility Systems 9 12

Acknowledgements
The authors, James S. Strandberg of J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. and John H. Pavlish of the Energy and Environmental Research Center wish to thank Mr. Peter Crimp and Mr. Dennis Meiners of the State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy and Dr. Mike Jones, Energy and Environmental Research Center for their assistance and counsel in the formulation of this report, and to recognize the early efforts of Mr. Norman Phillips, Jr. of Doyon, Limited and CRADA partner Mr. Don Bonk of Department of Energy, Federal Energy Transfer Center who were responsible for the McGrath Coal Fired Power Plant feasibility. This study was one of the key foundation elements for this work.

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

Table of Contents 1.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Feasibility Initiative The Screen Model Concept METHODOLOGY Power Plant Model Cost of Construction Assessment of Operating and Maintenance Costs Fuel Consumption The Thermal Model MODEL DESCRIPTION MODEL OUTPUT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 6 7 7 8 11 13

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Modeling Equations Appendix 2 Data Input Appendix 3 Model Output Tabular Data Output Cost of Power ($) versus Power Plant Generation Capacity (kWe) Cost Index (CF) = 1.0, 1.3 (District Heat Load (MMBTU/hr) (dh),(Cost of Coal ($/ton) (CP)
CF = 1.0, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, for CP=30 CF = 1.0, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, for CP=40 CF = 1.0, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, for CP=50 CF = 1.3, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, for CP=30 CF = 1.3, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, for CP=40 CF = 1.3, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, for CP=50

Appendix 4 Model Output Installed Capacity (kWe) versus Capital Cost ($) Cost Index (CF) = 1.0, 1.3, dh=0,10,20

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

1.0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Using the results of two independent processes, a simplistic spreadsheet based feasibility model was created for assessment of the financial viability of small solid fired power plants in Alaska. The power plant would produce heat and power, and employ a fluidized bed combustor capable of burning a wide range of solid fuels. A traditional steam turbinegenerator arrangement would generate electricity and low pressure steam for use in process and space heating. The model is considered valid over a range from 600 to 5,000 kWe net electrical output, and over a range of 0 to 40 million BTU/hr of heat by-product. This byproduct energy would leave the power plant either as process steam or hot water. The model is founded on two elements: A detailed feasibility study accomplished for the McGrath, Alaska privately owned electric utility, McGrath Light and Power. The study is for a 600kWe combined heat and power plant employing Rankine cycle steam turbines. (Reference 1) A proposal and bid evaluation process (Reference 2) which was undertaken by the State of Alaska, Department of Community and Regional Development, Division of Energy (State DOE), and the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) for the privately owned power utility serving Tok, Alaska. This process envisioned a 1,640 kWe net output combined heat and power plant with Rankine cycle steam turbines and a coal-fired fluidized bed combustor.

The results of these two efforts were combined to create a spread sheet based computer model which estimates the total cost of electricity for a location in Alaska. The model breaks down this cost into major components which can be easily related to a utility budget format. Model input data include costs of labor and fuel, district heating load, electrical load, and parasitic power requirements and boiler thermal efficiency. Thus a user may, with inputs of plant capacity and site specific economic information, compute the life cycle cost of electricity. The model, through use of a site location cost adjustment factor, is applicable to a wide range of locations and applications in the Alaskan economy. 2.0 INTRODUCTION

Assessing the feasibility of small, solid-fuel (coal and biomass) power plants for use in rural Alaska has been difficult because of a lack of cost and operations data. While much is known about operations of coal based plants of 20

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

megawatts and larger, there is very little known about the performance and cost of smaller solid fuel thermal power plants. Combining this lack of information about available technologies with the widely varying cost conditions that Alaska communities labor under, small utilities and other energy suppliers find it difficult to consider solid fuel fired combined heat and power plants as a viable option in power production planning. This project has been accomplished to develop a simplistic computer-based analysis tool for those who need to consider solid fueled combined heat and power plants in this 600-5,000 kWe range. It is expected that process plant owners and small rural power utilities will see an application of the tool. The spreadsheet model yields a critical performance parameter for the solid fuel power option, that of the overall cost of power production. The model considers the long term amortization of construction cost with ongoing operations costs, periodic renewal costs, and company overhead. 2.1 The Feasibility Initiative

Two separate initiatives [Reference 1 and 2] to develop small scale coal fired power plants have been accomplished in the past year, which have yielded basic performance and economic feasibility data for McGrath and Tok, Alaska. The McGrath Study Employing a Donlee fluidized bed combustor and a separate un-fired boiler with a dual turbine arrangement, the project was designed to provide a net output of 600 kWe and just under 10 million Btu/hr of 25 psig saturated steam for district heating. A complete conceptual design and a thorough estimate of construction cost which incorporated coal handling and storage/thawing was included in the feasibility reference. A detailed mine development plan for the little Tonzona coal deposit is part of the project documentation. The McGrath Project was carried to completion of conceptual design, where it was shelved because costs were significantly higher than the diesel alternative. The Tok Study A request for proposals was advertised by Alaskan Power and Telephone (AP&T) for the placement of a somewhat larger 1,640 net kWe power plant at Tok, Alaska. AP&T is a private power utility serving a number of Alaskan communities, and has an interest in developing solid fuel options for power production at Tok and was being funded by The State DOE and EERC. The project was to have been fired with coal obtained from a coal deposit near Jarvis Creek. The RFP process yielded 13 proposals which employed solid fuels and either a Rankine cycle or a hot air cycle for turbine electric generation. While the economic factors were comparable, AP&T shelved the project because they did not consider that any of the proposals competed well enough against diesel

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

power options. The company also had a complete workload of hydro-powered projects underway at other locations. 2.2 The Screening Model Concept

While neither of the projects yielded an economically feasible design for the two respective communities, it was realized that the cost and conceptual design data and experience gained from McGrath and Tok were valuable . The experience gained with the two projects indicated that other, larger rural center communities might be more appropriate for solid fuel power production. The project team felt the following conditions are necessary for a solid fuel plant to achieve feasibility: Large base load unit size Coincident process/district heating load present Competitive coal price (purchase plus transportation charges) at a price the per million Btu cost of diesel fuel

Knowing then that a number of communities in Alaska might meet the above feasibility criteria, the concept of a spreadsheet based model based on the McGrath and Tok data was pursued, to facilitate this state-wide screening process. Modeling criteria and concepts were put forth as follows: The Tok and McGrath conceptual designs, their respective construction costs and data on operating costs would be adjusted to a comparable Anchorage cost basis. In doing so, power plants considered for Tok and McGrath could be reviewed to understand how first costs vary with plant output. This understanding could then be used to develop regression equations to calculate costs for other power plant sizes. The basis of cost would include models for energy production and consumption, operating labor and maintenance, consumables (fuel and limestone), and capital investment, stated as a function of unit size. A user would be able to input the physical and economic parameters that describe a potential solid fuel project. Then using the models empirical relationships, the user could compute for a specific plant size, financing climate and utility overhead structure, the expected cost for the production for power and heat. By applying an appropriate cost factor (a multiplier greater than 1 generally, which is a ratio of the cost at a new location to that in Anchorage), the cost of the plant in a specific community could be determined.

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

3.0 3.1

METHODOLOGY Power Plant Model

The power plant that is modeled includes all major equipment within the power block including: Fluidized Bed Combustor, with fuel storage and handling systems configured to handle solid fuels. A traditional steam cycle including an extraction steam turbine, configured to generate electric power and a relatively high quality process steam/water. Deaerator and pumps included. Fans for delivering air into the fluidized be combustor. Condensing equipment for the rejection of cycle heat Particulate removal device District Heating pumping and heat transfer equipment to create a low temperature (250 deg F) hot water heating medium. Controls and instrumentation Cost of Construction

3.2

The designs for McGrath and Tok both employ similar equipment and have essentially the same thermal cycle, as presented in Figure 1. Thus it is possible to review and make selective modifications to the cost estimates to arrive at the same power plant design, but with different size, in two different communities. Then there was a need to modify the project costs (in McGrath and Tok) back to a common base, and this was done using Anchorage as the basis. Data for this cost modification were from a study accomplished at an earlier date, and while somewhat old were still were felt to reflect a reasonable approach to cost comparison. Once these two actions were complete, the team had two separate power plant projects, of very similar design, costed on an Anchorage base that were available for use in building a model. (Reference 3) The McGrath cost estimate is felt to represent a complete project budget and thus was not changed prior to having the cost modifier applied to bring the project to an Anchorage base. In contrast, the proposal process employed for Tok Alaska resulted in the receipt of 13 turnkey proposals which included some large variations in approach for thermal cycle and equipment. As a part of the work, these proposals were evaluated in a screening process, and 3 of the 13 proposals were selected as being responsive proposals. Each proposal employed a fluidized bed combustor, a suitable steam generator, and expanded steam in a steam turbine capable of creating the necessary district heating, and electricity. Costs quoted between these three proposals varied widely, and reflected a range of design approaches. On one bound, a proposal quoted a low construction cost, and clearly did not include many of the fuels handling equipment necessary for a successful coal fired power plant in Alaska. At the other bound,

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

another proposer submitted with a viable combustor/boiler arrangement, but had a steam turbine system which was not felt to be workable within the context of providing large quantities of high quality district heating. However this proposal included a full complement of fuel handling equipment that would be necessary for proper operation. A decision was made to average the proposed turnkey construction costs from these three proposals to derive a single value ($/kW) for input into the model. Costs for the Tok powerplant (1,640 kWe net output), corrected to an Anchorage base, and the costs for the McGrath power plant (600 kWe net output), similarly corrected to the Anchorage base were then entered into a regression equation, which relates unit size to cost. The basic form of the equation is shown below: Cn =Cr(Sn/Sr)P Where Cn = new adjusted cost corresponding to the new size (Sn) ($) Cr = reference cost at the reference size (Sr) ($) Sn = New Size (kWe) Sr = Reference Size (kWe) P = Power Factor, typically (0.6 to 0.8)

While some (Reference 4 and 5) suggest a constant power factor in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 for use in the above equation, it was speculated that for this size range the power factor would also vary as a function of unit size. Recent review of this was supported by (reference 5). The reference generally indicate that for very small unit sizes, the economics of scale are much more significant than for large size ranges. This is the reason that the curve of cost/installed capacity is steep where unit sizes are small. Given this background and the data from the McGrath and Tok, process power factors in the range of 600 - 1640 kWe calculated to be 0.3, and were assumed to be 0.8 above 1640 kWe. As a caveat, it should be noted that a literature search (Reference 6) performed by EERC did not reveal any cost data for solid fuel plants in this 600 5,000 kWe range. However the developed relationships and noted power factors do appear to meet the limit data points up to the 20 megawatt level. 3.3 Assessment of Operating and Maintenance Costs

Similarly, an analysis of operating and maintenance cost was developed, which employs a linear regression equation that relates operating labor, maintenance and operations costs to unit size. The estimates for labor include day time operator and presumes unattended nighttime operation. There are at present no regulations requiring round the clock manning. (Reference 7).
J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

3.4

Fuel Consumption the Thermal Model

A simplified thermal model was developed that simulates unit operation in the following manner: A base electrical load is carried throughout the year, except during a yearly shut down period. A district heating load is carried which varies with outside air temperature. Heating load is expressed as a peak design load that is modified by a peak to average factor.

The performance of the boiler system is expressed as an overall seasonal thermal efficiency, and can be specified by the user. The performance of the steam turbine is summarized by a throttle steam equation that inputs the extraction steam requirement and the electrical load requirement. A 10% factor is added to cover deaerator and station heating system steam requirements. A standard 5,000 kWe extraction steam turbine with full extraction capability is used as the base model. The extraction performance for this turbine compares favorably with the 600 kWe extraction turbine. Power plant station power is expressed as a parasitic power factor, which is a fraction of the net output of the power station and can be specified by the user. This factor is quite important in power plant economics and will be as high as 30% for plants under 1000 kWe and as low as 12% at 5,000 kWe. Steam plants typically do have high station service power requirements and fluidized bed systems tend to take considerable power to keep circulating beds in a fluid state. 4.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION Analyses of the Tok and McGrath projects, yielded regression relationships for performance and costs which are used to create an interactive spreadsheet model. The model employs the regression equations to compute performance and costs, and data input for the model is broken into the following major areas Power Plant Physical Characteristics Steam Cycle Parameters Costs of Consumables Costs of Labor Economic Parameters for Cost of Ownership General and Administrative Overhead Factors

A series of calculation routines operate on the input data set. This calculation set is defined in Appendix 1 Modeling equations. The modeling incorporates simplified steady state thermal systems analysis, and assumes that the system

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

is base loaded at a set electrical load, while the heating load is assumed to vary throughout the year. Table 1 provides an abbreviated listing of model inputs, while Appendix 2 shows a screen display of the spreadsheet input section. 5.0 MODEL OUTPUT The output of the model is expressed in a tabular format, and is shown in Appendix 3. In addition, there is a tabular section of the spreadsheet, which allows a user to do what if analyses when viewing a potential power plant, its size and character. Characteristic curves summarizing model predictions are included in Appendices 3 and 4. Appendix 3 presents characteristic curves of overall cost of power versus unit size, for a number of different economic conditions. Costs for construction are included (Appendix 4) for two primary cost factors 1.0 (Anchorage base) and 1.3 (Aleutian rural center). As a check, the results of the model were considered with recent construction experience in the state of Alaska. Of specific interest was the relationship between the cost of the Healy Clean Coal Project and the cost predicted by the screening model. The model predicts an installed price for a 5,000 kWe power plant in an Aleutian rural center of about $2,600 per kWe. The price for the Healy Clean Coal Plant has variously been reported at $4,000 per kWe for a 55,000 kWe plant size. While it does not seem reasonable that the unit cost for a small plant would be less than that of a larger state of the art plan in the railbelt, the project team did feel that there are ameliorating circumstances, as listed below: The smaller plant employing a fluidized bed will be considerably simpler than the Healy Clean Coal (55 MW) power plant The Healy plant has extensive and complex combustion and exhaust gas cleaning systems employing complex technologies. This may have driven the cost up well above that which is normal for large scale plants. Costs/installed kWe for the normal 20 to 50 MW power plant in the lower 48 ranges around $2,000/kWe. EPRI reports a cost of $2085/kW for a biomass-fired fluidized bed power plant (Reference 8) The technology employed for the rural solid fuel plant is simple, and employs off the shelf equipment

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

Table 1 - Model Input Descriptions and Values Model Variable Units Typical Value

Power Plant Inputs Power Generation Net power generated output from plant Capacity factor Fraction (decimal equivelant) of the year the plant is in operation [Normally expressed as (kWh/yr)/(Max available kWh/yr)] hrs/yr no. of hours per year (calculation variable) Parasitic Power Requirement Percent of the net power generation that must be produced in addition to net power output to power internal plant auxiliaries District Heat Design district heat output from the powerplant Coal Higher Heating Value BTU content of the coal fuel (higher heating value) Boiler Thermal Efficiency Overall thermal efficiency of the coal fired combustor/boiler Peak to average ratio for district heating load The district heating load will vary throughout the year. This number multiplied by the design district heat

KWe

600

factor

0.912

8760

% of net output

0.15

MMBTU/ hr

9.62

BTU/lb

8,700

ratio

0.8

ratio

0.5

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

output equals the yearly average heating load. Steam Cycle Parameters A steam turbine curve has been developed for the steam turbine arrangement in the power plant. . These constants are used to establish boiler header steam flow equation constant equation constant equation constant factor for DA heat/station heat delhfor plant (enthalpy difference for header steam as it goes from header to condenser hotwell Economic Data: Cost of Consumables Coal Limestone Percent of coal consumption Ash Disposal (assumed equal to10% of coal) Operations/Maint Supplies Replacement parts Utilities (Water, Electricity) A regression based factor is computed and applied to increase these costs as unit size increases.

BTU/lb

8.81 3000 658.18 0.1 1258.5

$/Ton % of Coal Cost

52 10%

$/Ton Basis Basis Basis

20 50,000 50,000 25000

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The model developed is shown to be an effective tool for predicting the cost of a new power station, if reasonable assumptions are made as to electrical generation capability, the district heat requirement, and the cost structure in the community. The model is easy to use and allows the user to input site-specific criteria thereby facilitating what-if types of analysis to be performed. The model can be used to generate numerous sensitivity curves. The inclusion of process heat sales will help offset the cost of electricity produced by the powerplant. The ability of the solid fuel plant to produce medium grade process heat as a by-product emerges as a major benefit and enhances the marketability at the plant. Cost of fuel, labor, and installation are the major determinates in economics of solid fuel power plants. The dynamic relationship of cost of solid fuels in Alaska does center around transportation costs, and it appears that a potential community where solid fuel could be feasible may need to be readily accessible by ocean barge. The family of curves that summarizes the modeling results for Anchorage and an Aleution Island urban center are included in Appendix 3 and 4. In these examples (shown in Appendix 3) costs for power production fall dramatically as unit size increases from 600 kWe to 2000 kWe. Above 2,000 kWe, prices tend to decrease at a lesser rate, indicating that solid fuel power may find greater application where a base power load greater than 2,000 to 3,000 kWe exists in a community. The units projected in the modeling at 5 MW appear to be considerably less expensive than the 55 MW Healy coal fired power plant. The team feels that the simplicity and maturity of the smaller fluidized bed combustion systems envisioned may be one reason for this cost differential. In a companion activity, the Division of Energy has reviewed power utility statistics and has arrived at a list of communities where a base load of 2,000 kWe exists. Locations where a solid fuel plant could find application are listed below in Table 2 Listing of Community Utility Systems. The results reported herein are provided to illustrate the use of the model. Results are shown for the one case only (cost factor 1.3). Numerous other cases can be viewed easily by changing the model inputs. It is important to note that the model should be considered a preliminary analysis tool. If a project appears feasible using the model, it would be incumbent on the project developer and investor to proceed to a more detailed analyses for the project to confirm the feasibility.

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

Table 2 - Listing of Community Utility Systems Utility Name Bethel Utility Corp Inc. Unalaska Electric Utility Nome Joint Utility System Cordova Electric cooperative, Inc. Kotzebue Electric Association Naknek Electric Association, Inc. Craig Nushagak Electric Cooperative, Inc. (dilling) Haines light and power Skagway Tok Galena, City of Yakutat Power THREA--Klawock THREA--Kake THREA--Hoonah St. Paul Municipal Electric Utility Unalakleet Vallkey Electric Utility AVEC-- Point Hope NSPB&L--Wainwright Sand Point Electric Company G&K, Inc. (Cold Bay) McGrath Light & Power King Cove, City of Pelican Utility Company Population 5,195 4,122 4,067 2,583 2,971 1,482 1,729 2,191 1,458 781 935 603 747 759 727 911 712 750 704 535 1,042 185 495 893 225 Total Customers 2,045 591 1,680 1,564 957 860 873 1,257 957 680 686 282 328 420 321 356 217 303 218 188 483 70 214 244 232 Average Load (kWe) 3,717 3,114 2,973 2,510 2,231 2,112 1,950 1,823 1,259 1,073 1,068 846 808 512 499 481 458 429 423 397 372 337 328 315 313

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

7.0 REFERENCES 1. A Feasibility Analysis of a Proposed Coal Fired Thermal Power Station for McGrath, Alaska, for MTNT, Limited and McGrath Light and Power, by J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc. June 1997 2. A proposal process administrated by the State of Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Energy, soliciting priced proposals for the turn-key construction of a 1,640 kWe cogeneration Power Plant in Tok, Alaska. 3. Strandberg, J. S., Cost data for building construction in cost regions of the State of Alaska in support of research for State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to establish a life cycle cost based thermal standards for small rural schools, 1983. 4. Popper, Herbert, ed., Modern Cost-Engineering Techniques, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1970. 5. Jenkins, B. M., A Comment on the Optimal Sizing of a Biomass Utilization Facility under Constant and Variable Cost Scaling, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, Biomass and Bio-energy Vol. 13. Nos pp 1-9, 1997. 6. Literature search, accomplished for costing of similar fluidized-Bed Combustor units, by Energy and Environmental Research Center, March 1998. [Informal copy, not published] 7. State of Alaska Department of Labor, Steam Boiler Regulations 8. Bhattacharya, S. C., State of the Art of Biomass Combustion, Energy Sources, 20:113-135, Taylor & Francis, 1998

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

8.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Modeling equations Appendix 2 Data Input Appendix 3 Model Output Tabular data output Cost of Power ($/kWe) versus Power Plant Generation Capacity (kWe) (District Heat Load (MMBTU/hr) (dh) (Cost of Coal ($/ton) (CP)
CF = 1.0, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, CP=30 CF = 1.0, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, CP=40 CF = 1.0, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, CP=50 CF = 1.3, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, CP=30 CF = 1.3, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, CP=40 CF = 1.3, dh = 0,10, 20, 30, 40, CP=50

Appendix 4 Model Output Installed Capacity (kWe) versus Capital Cost ($) Cost Index (CF) = 1.0, 1.3, dh=0,10,20

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.

APPENDIX 1 Modeling Equations Parasitic Power = (parasitic power requirement) (power generation) Total Power Output = (Power Generation + Parasitic Power) Electrical Generation Delivered = ((power generation) (8760 hrs/yr) (capacity factor)) / 10 6 Header Steam Flow = (8.81 (total plant power output) +3000 + (658.18) (design heating load) * peak/ave ratio DH load) (1 + factor DA station heat) Fuel Burn Rate = Annual heat input to boiler / ((hrs/yr) capacity factor) Annual Heat to Boiler = ((header steam flow / boiler efficiency) (del H for plant) (hrs/yr(capacity factor)) / 106 Coal Requirement = ((annual heat input to boiler / coal higher heating value) / 2000) (106) District Heating Delivered from Power Plant = (design heating load) (capacity factor) (peak/average ratio DH load) * 8760 Useful Energy Produced by Plant = (electrical energy delivered from power plant) (3412) / (design heating load) (106) (peak to ave ratio DH load) Electrical Work to Heat Ratio = Power generation (1 parasitic power) (3412) / (design heating load) (106) (peak to ave ratio DH load) Overall Plant Utilization Ratio = Useful energy delivered by power plant / annual heat input to boiler

Technology Assessment - Small Coal Plant Screening Model

Capital Cost = ($3000/kW) * (1640/new kW size)0.7 * new kW size + 200,000 (new DH size/15 mmBtuhr) 0.7

J. S. Strandberg Consulting Engineers, Inc.