290 likes | 1.14k Views
Introduction to Solomon Associates Power Plant Benchmarking Database . World Energy Council Committee on Performance of Generating Plant November 4, 2008. Solomon Associates Data Base. Reliability, Expenditure & Market Data Useable Information Plant Performance Improvement .
E N D
Introduction to Solomon Associates Power Plant Benchmarking Database World Energy CouncilCommittee on Performance of Generating PlantNovember 4, 2008
Solomon Associates Data Base Reliability, Expenditure & Market Data Useable Information Plant Performance Improvement
There are only three areas of losses in existing power plants Lost Revenue Opportunity Inefficient Fuel Conversion Excessive Expenditures
Cause Code # Events Total LRO, €k # Plants # Units Unplanned LRO Cause Codes – Gas & Oil 3210 9160 6200 3113 9130 9720 3149 8 6 16 4 50 6 4 439 160 159 117 95 70 59 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CW Pumps Other Economic Problems CC Instrumentation Condensor Cleaning Lack Of Fuel Safety Problems Loss Of Vacuum
16,000 Simple Cycle/Peaking 14,000 12,000 Btu/Net kWh D Steam B 10,000 C Super Critical 8,000 A Combined Cycle/Cogeneration 6,000 0 25 50 75 100 MWh Produced, % Heat RateStudy
1Q/2Q Break 2Q/3Q Break 3Q/4Q Break Site Wages & Benefits Contract & Centralized Employees Materials Overhauls LTSA/PSA Other Variable Miscellaneous PlantManageable ExpendituresCombined Cycle
1Q/2Q Break 2Q/3Q Break 3Q/4Q Break Personnel StaffingCombined Cycle Site Centralized Contract A&G
MaintCostCC 1Q/2Q Break 2Q/3Q Break 3Q/4Q Break NonOverhaul Overhaul LTSA/PSA Maintenance IndexCombined Cycle 4 3 2 US $/MWh 1 0 Group Co E A Avg Avg
0.00 33.76 A E 0.85 2.66 4.56 2.55 A E 37.92 4.09 5.94 7.42 Pacesetter Performer Performance SummaryCombined Cycle Unplanned Unavailability, % Heat Rate, Btu/kWh E 6,305 A 15,139 7,577 8,005 9,004 Total Cash Less Fuel, €/MWh
E B A C D 1,514 3,707 654 196 – 2,319 – – – - 5,078 5,784 3,350 7,157 4,447 11,104 4,004 4,643 5,784 8,671 Gap AnalysisPotential Savings, €k Revenue/LRO Fuels/Operations Expenditures* Total Gap * Expenditures calculated on MWH basis for all units except Plant D. Due to the low utilization (capacity factor), the gap was calculated on a MW (fixed) cost basis.
Recent Trends in North American Database2005 - 2007 • Maintenance Index / MWh – Up 10.5 % • Overhaul Index / MWh – Up 16.2% • Shift to more planned overhaul spending • Equivalent Unavailability Factor – Virtually unchanged • Planned Unavailability – Up 1.3 % • Shift in unavailable time from forced to planned • Result • Unplanned Unavailability – Down 2.6% • Unplanned Commercial Unavailability Index - Down 8.5% • Increased maintenance spending in overhauls is reducing market losses
Equivalent Risk Analysis • Solomon’s graphical method for comparison of maintenance risk between plants and major components within plants
7.20 6.80 6.40 6.00 5.60 Maintenance Index, US $/MWh 5.20 4.80 4.40 0.90 4.00 0.80 3.60 0.70 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 3.20 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Equivalent Unavailability Factor, % Maintenance Risk by Unit or Plant 2 4 5 3 1
-7 $10 /MWh -6 -5 -4 -3 $10 /MWh $10 /MWh $10 /MWh $10 /MWh Component Maintenance Cost RiskPlant A – Unit 2 10.000 Boiler 5.000 Coal Pulverizers/ Hammer Mills $1/MWh 1.000 Fuel Delivery System Turbine 0.500 Generator (Gen) $0.1/MWh Maintenance Index, US $/MWh 0.100 Cooling Water Facilities 0.050 Valves & Controls $0.01/MWh 0.010 0.005 0.001 0.0005 0.0050 0.0500 0.5000 5.0000 50.0000 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 Equivalent Unplanned Unavailability, %
-7 $10 /MWh -6 -5 -4 -3 $10 /MWh $10 /MWh $10 /MWh $10 /MWh Mill Maintenance Cost RiskPlant A – Units 1 & 2 10.000 5.000 Unit 1 $1/MWh 1.000 Unit 2 0.500 $0.1/MWh Maintenance Index, US $/MWh 0.100 0.050 $0.01/MWh 0.010 0.005 0.001 0.0005 0.0050 0.0500 0.5000 5.0000 50.0000 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 Equivalent Unplanned Unavailability, %
7.20 6.80 6.40 6.00 5.60 Maintenance Index, US $/MWh 5.20 4.80 4.40 0.90 4.00 0.80 3.60 0.70 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 3.20 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 Equivalent Unavailability Factor, % Company Maintenance Risk Trend 2002 to 2006 Positive Trend Down Across Risk Lines! 2003 2002 2006 2004 2005
Methods of Normalization • Historical methods • MW – fixed cost basis • MWH – variable cost basis • GJ variable cost basis (for cogeneration facilities) • Operating hours • These methods do not consider both fixed and variable costs • Solomon’s method – Equivalent Generation Complexity • Predicts total cash less fuel; considering both fixed and variable costs • Derived from our database • Puts various generation technologies, fuels, and utilizations on same spending curve
Unplanned Unavailability Correlation 100 3 90 Unreliability driving over spending Watch Areas Under spending driving unreliability 80 70 2 60 Unplanned Unavailability, % 50 OPEX Less Fuel / EGC 40 1 30 20 Unplanned Unavailability 10 0 0 Percentile
3 2 EGC/Total Cash Less Fuel 1 0 0 25 50 75 100 MWh Produced, % Equivalent Generation ComplexityStudy Potential Over Spending Predicted Spending E D A B C Potential Under Spending Pacesetter
Solomon AssociatesM³ — Measure. Manage. Maximize.® Ed Platt Senior Consultant ed.platt@SolomonOnline.com Two Galleria Tower Suite 1500 13455 Noel Road Dallas, Texas 75240 Phone: 972-739-1757 Fax: 972-726-9999 www.SolomonOnline.com Contact Information