Special Sale on Power Plant Project Finance Models – Renewable, Conventional, Fossil, Nuclear and Waste Heat Recovery Technologies

Special Sale on Power Plant Project Finance Models – Renewable, Conventional, Fossil, Nuclear and Waste Heat Recovery Technologies

The following models may be downloaded for only USD200 for the first 100 clients this September 1-30, 2017.

The models for renewable, conventional, fossil, nuclear, energy storage, and combined heat and power (CHP) project finance models are based on a single template so that you can prioritize which power generation technology to apply in a given application for more detailed design and economic study.

The models below are in Philippine Pesos (PHP) and may be converted to any foreign currency by inputting the appropriate exchange rate (e.g. 1 USD = 1.0000 USD; 1 USD = 50.000 PHP, 1 USD = 3.800 MYR, etc.). Then do a global replacement in all worksheets of ‘PHP’ with ‘XXX’, where ‘XXX’ is the foreign currency of the model.

Read more

Welcome to Energy Data Expert!


Welcome to Energy Data Expert!

Your energy technology selection expert has written and developed a number of energy and power generation technology articles and supplemented them with easy-to-use and state-of-the-art project finance models for renewable, conventional, fossil, nuclear, hybrid and energy storage power generation technologies.

The energy and power generation technologies are available in power point format so that when you order them, you can download the article and edit the file to make your own presentation.

The articles will provide you leads to enhance further your knowledge by way of more internet search keys to arrive at more articles to improve the quality and coverage of your research paper.

Using a single template, various project finance models were developed and is now available to all interested users at a reasonable license fee so that project developers can compare the economics of various power generation technologies or optimize the configuration of a technology, and thus help the developer prepare a comprehensive feasibility study.

To contact the expert, please email me to get more information, at the following email address:




Cheers to all readers and visitors:


Your Energy Data Expert

Your Energy Technology Selection Expert


Oil Pump Price Calculation (OPPC) Model – an Excel Model

Oil Pump Price Calculation (OPPC) Model – an Excel Model

  • Calibrate Model by Calculating % Gross Margin from Pump Price Less All Costs:
  • %GM = {[PP – OPSF – TPLC * (1 – % biofuel)] / (1 + VAT2) – [(TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF + HF + DM]} / {TPLC * (1 – % biofuel)}
  • Calculate Pump Price using the % Gross Margin and Other Cost Inputs:
  • PP = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) + [TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * %GM + (TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF + HF + DM] * (1 + %VAT2) + OPSF

To download excel model and IOPRC 2012 report, click the following link of DOE:

  • Calculation of TPLC and PP
  • MOPS$ = Mean of Platts Singapore (imported cost of fuel)
  • FOB$ = Freight on Board in US$ = MOPS * 300,000
  • FRT$ = Ocean Freight in US$ = FOB$ * 2.00%
  • INS$ = Ocean Insurance in US$ = FOB$ * 4.00%
  • CIF$ = Cargo, Insurance & Freight in US$ = FOB$ + FRT$ + INS$
  • CIF = CIF in Pesos = CIF$ * (FOREX, P/$)
  • CD = Customs Duty = CIF * 3.00% (now zero due to ASEAN AFTA)
  • BF= Brokerage Fee = 5,300 + (CIF – 200,000) * 0.00125
  • BC = Bank Charges = CIF * 0.00125
  • AC = Arrastre Charge (gasoline) = 122 * (0.75 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
  • AC = Arrastre Charge (diesel) = 122 * (0.80 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
  • WC = Wharfage Charge (gasoline) = 36.65 * (0.75 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
  • WC = Wharfage Charge (diesel) = 36.65 * (0.80 * 158.9868 / 1000) * 300,000
  • IPF = Import Processing Fee = 1,000 per import entry
  • CDS = Customs Documentary Stamp = 256 per import entry
  • ET = Excise Tax (gasoline) = 4.35 * 158.9868 * 300,000
  • ET = Excise Tax (diesel) = 1.63 * 158.9868 * 300,000
  • LC = Landed Cost = CIF + CD + BF + BC + AC + WC + IPF + CDS + ET
  • VAT1 (on import) = 10% * Landed Cost (Nov 2005 – Jan 2000)
  •                             = 12% * Landed Cost (Feb 2006 – present)
  • TPLC = LC + VAT1 (imports) = LC * (1 + %VAT1)
  • TPLC (P/L) = TPLC / (300,000 * 158.9868)
  • Summary to BOC = CD + IPF + CDS + ET + VAT1
  • Summary to BOC (P/L) = Summary to BOC / (300,000 * 158.9868)
  • OCGM = Oil Company Gross Margin (P/L) = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * % gross margin
  • OOCC = Other Oil Company Costs (P/L) = (TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF
  • TS = Transshipment = 0.38 P/L (for oil tanker ships and barges)
  • PL = Pipeline = 0.000 P/L (for FPIC)
  • DE = depot = 0.27 P/L (gasoline)
  •                    = 0.28 P/L (diesel)
  • BF = Biofuels = 10% * (P/L of ETHANOL) = 2.63 P/L (gasoline)
  •                        =  2% * (P/L of CME Biodiesel) = 1.28 P/L (diesel)
  • HF = Hauler’s Fee (P/L) = 0.21 P/L (gasoline and diesel)
  • DM = Dealer’s Margin (P/L) = 1.72 (gasoline)
  •                                                 = 1.47 (diesel)
  • TLC = Total Local Costs (P/L) = OCGM + OOCC + HF + DM
  • VAT2 (local costs) = 10% * Total Local Cost (Nov 2005 – Jan 2006)
  •                                = 12% * Total Local Cost (Feb 2006 – present)
  • PP = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) + [TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * %GM + (TS + PL + DE) * (1 – % biofuel) + BF + HF + DM] * (1 + %VAT2) + OPSF

The pump price (PP) component called the oil company gross margin is given by:

  • OCGM = TPLC * (1 – % biofuel) * %GM
  •  = fixed O&M + variable O&M + marketing expense + depreciation + profit margin

The OCGM is used to cover the fixed and variable costs of the oil company plus the marketing expenses and depreciation cost of its invested capital assets and provide profit margin that recovers its capital investments and thus determine the IRR of the investment made by the oil company.

  • Thank You !!!
  • Prepared by:
  • Marcial T. Ocampo
  • TWG Member, IOPRC 2012


Holiday Sale this December 2017 on Deterministic (fixed inputs) and Stochastic (random Monte Carlo Simulation) Power Plant Project Finance Models

Holiday Sale this December 2017 on Deterministic (fixed inputs) and Stochastic (random Monte Carlo Simulation) Power Plant Project Finance Models

Flash News:

There is great enthusiasm for the new models as 3 models have been purchased:

Dec 6 – Deterministic (fixed inputs) ADV NatGas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) – USD100

Dec 9 – Deterministic (fixed inputs) ADV NatGas Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) – USD100

Dec 12 – Dual-capable Deterministic (fixed inputs) and Stochastic (Monte Carlo simulation random inputs) ADV Mini-hydro (run-of-river) – USD200 (buy one model to do both deterministic and stochastic modeling).

The client would use the mini-hydro model to study the following sensitivities:

1) 2 x 4.00 MW design capacity at 50% availability, 92% load factor and 2% parasitic load for a net capacity factor of 45.08%.  All-in capital cost is 3,523 $/kW while fixed O&M cost is 16.96 ‘000$/kW/year (excluding G&A of 20.00 ‘000$/year) and variable O&M cost is 2.40 $/MWh.

2) Vary the unit capacity of 4.00 MW to minimum and maximum value based on minimum river flow and maximum river flow (from hydrologic study) by using the power equation to predict power output given head (m net head) and river flow (m/s discharge rate).

3) Construction period of 2 years (24 months) with 0 year delay and 1 year (24 months) delay. This will increase construction cost (and thus all-in capital cost due to inflation) as well as first year tariff (feed-in-tariff) needed to meet equity and project returns.

The following models may be downloaded for only USD100 for deterministic (uses fixed inputs) and USD200 for stochastic (uses random inputs using Monte Carlo Simulation) for the all clients this December 1-30, 2017.

To avail of the discount this December, please email me to confirm your order and model type and remit payment via PayPal using also the same email address and PayPal account:


You may also email me using the email address above to confirm your order and remit payment via bank/wire transfer to the account below:


1) Name of Bank Branch & Address:

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)

Pasig Ortigas Branch

G/F Benpres Building, Exchange Road corner Meralco Avenue

Ortigas Center, PASIG CITY 1605


2) Account Name:

Marcial T. Ocampo

3) Account Number:

Current Account = 0205-5062-41



Once I confirm receipt of payment, I will then email you the deterministic model (cost USD100) and the stochastic (Monte Carlo Simulation) model (cost USD200) should you desire it.

The models for renewable, conventional, fossil, nuclear, energy storage, and combined heat and power (CHP) project finance models are based on a single template so that you can prioritize which power generation technology to apply in a given application for more detailed design and economic study.

Our company (OMT Energy Enterprises) can also provide customization services to provide you with power plant project finance models with fixed inputs (deterministic models) as well as random inputs (stochastic models). If you have an existing model which you want to be audited or upgraded to have stochastic modeling capability, you may also avail of our services at an hourly rate of USD200 per hour for a maximum of 5 hours of charge for customization services.

The model inputs consist of the fixed inputs (independent variables) plus a random component as shown below (based on +/- 10% range, which you can edit in the Sensitivity worksheet):

1) Plant availability factor (% of time) = 94.52% x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

2) Fuel heating value (GHV) = 5,198 Btu/lb x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

3) Plant capacity per unit = 12.00 MW/unit x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

4) Variable O&M cost (at 5.26 $/MWh) = 30.05 $000/MW/year x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

5) Fixed O&M cost (at 105.63 $/kW/year) = 1,227.64 $000/unit/year x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

6) Fixed G&A cost = 10.00 $000/year x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

7) Cost of fuel = 1.299 PHP/kg x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

8) Plant heat rate = 12,186 Btu/kWh x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

9) Exchange rate = 43.00 PHP/USD x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

10) Capital cost = 1,935 $/kW x ( 90% + (110% – 90%) * RAND() )

The dependent variables that will be simulated using Monte Carlo Simulation and which a distribution curve (when you make bold font the number of random trials) may be generated are as follows:

1) Equity Returns (NPV, IRR, PAYBACK) at 30% equity, 70% debt

2) Project Returns (NPV, IRR, PAYBACK) at 100% equity, 0% debt

3) Net Profit After Tax

4) Pre-Tax WACC

5) Electricity Tariff (Feed-in-Tariff)

The models below are in Philippine Pesos (PHP) and may be converted to any foreign currency by inputting the appropriate exchange rate (e.g. 1 USD = 1.0000 USD; 1 USD = 50.000 PHP, 1 USD = 3.800 MYR, etc.). Then do a global replacement in all worksheets of ‘PHP’ with ‘XXX’, where ‘XXX’ is the foreign currency of the model.

To order directly and immediately the deterministic models for USD100, please click the links below. But if you want the stochastic (Monte Carlo Simulation) models for USD200, you have to order it via email as explained above.


1) process heat (steam) and power


2) bagasse, rice husk or wood waste fired boiler steam turbine generator


3) gasification (thermal conversion in high temperature without oxygen or air)


4) integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology


5) waste-to-energy (WTE) technology for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal and treatment


6) waste-to-energy (WTE) pyrolysis technology


7) run-of-river (mini-hydro) power plant


8) concentrating solar power (CSP) 400 MW


9) solar PV technology 1 MW Chinese


10) solar PV technology 25 MW European and Non-Chinese (Korean, Japanese, US)


11) includes 81 wind turbine power curves from onshore WTG manufacturers


12) includes 81 wind turbine power curves from offshore WTG manufacturers


13) ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology 10 MW


14) ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology 50 MW


14) ocean current and tidal technology (30 MW) – this is a similar to an air wind turbine but under water with a turbine propeller (Taiwan has an operating prototype in Kuroshio and PNOC-EC is venturing into ocean current at the Tablas Strait).

(to follow – you can order it via email – new release)


1) geothermal power plant 100 MW


2) large hydro power plant 500 MW


3) subcritical circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology 50 MW


4) subcritical circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology 135 MW


5) subcritical pulverized coal (PC) technology 400 MW


6) supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology 500 MW


7) ultra-supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology 650 MW


8) diesel-fueled genset (compression ignition engine) technology 50 MW


9) fuel oil (bunker oil) fired genset (compression ignition engine) technology 100 MW


10) fuel oil (bunker oil) fired oil thermal technology 600 MW


11) natural gas combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) 500 MW


12) natural gas simple cycle (open cycle) gas turbine (OCGT) 70 MW


13) natural gas thermal 200 MW


14) petroleum coke (petcoke) fired subcritical thermal 220 MW


15) nuclear (uranium) pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) technology 1330 MW



1) combined heat and power (CHP) circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology 50 MW


2) diesel genset (diesel, gas oil) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW


3) fuel oil (bunker) genset and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW


4) gasoline genset (gasoline, land fill gas) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW


5) simple cycle GT (propane, LPG) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW (e.g. Capstone)


6) simple cycle GT (natural gas, land fill gas) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW (e.g. Capstone)



Your energy technology selection and project finance modeling expert


Pre-Christmas Sale on all Power Plant Project Finance Models

Pre-Christmas Sale on all Power Plant Project Finance Models

Yes, you are right.

Your energy technology selection and financial modeling expert is offering all our global clients a pre-Christmas (November 1-30, 2017) sale of USD200 on all project finance models for conventional, fossil, nuclear, renewable, energy storage and waste heat recovery systems.

To avail of the pre-Christmas sale, just email me at:


Once I receive your email request and identify the model you need, then make payments thru PayPal using my account:




or via bank/wire transfer to my current account:


1) Name of Bank Branch & Address:

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)

Pasig Ortigas Branch

G/F Benpres Building, Exchange Road corner Meralco Avenue

Ortigas Center, PASIG CITY 1605


2) Account Name:

Marcial T. Ocampo

3) Account Number:

Current Account = 0205-5062-41



You need to specify the local currency you want, aside from the standard USD currency model, so the tariff calculations will be in your own local currency.

A list of the demo models for the actual models for sale at USD 200 is shown below.


PROJECT FINANCE MODELS (in Philippine Currency)

Try the models below in Philippine Currency (other currencies are available such as USD, EUR, GBP, CNY, THB, MYR, IDR, INR, etc.).

Group 1 – Renewable Energy Technologies:

ADV Biomass Cogeneration Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass Direct Combustion Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass Gasification Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass IGCC Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass WTE Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass WTE Model3 – pyrolysis – demo5b

ADV Mini-Hydro Model3 – demo5b

ADV Ocean Thermal Model3_10 MW – demo5b

ADV Ocean Thermal Model3_50 MW – demo5b

ADV Tidal Current Model3_30 MW (PHP) – demo5b

ADV Solar PV 1 mw Model3 – demo5b

ADV Solar PV 25 mw Model3 – demo5b

ADV Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Model3 – demo5b

ADV Wind Offshore Model3 – demo5b

ADV Wind Onshore Model3 – demo5b

Group 2 – Clean Coal Technologies:

ADV Coal-Fired CFB Thermal Model3_50 MW – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired CFB Thermal Model3_135 MW – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired PC Subcritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired PC Supercritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired PC Ultrasupercritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

Group 3 – Conventional & Fossil & Nuclear Technologies:

ADV Diesel Genset Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Genset Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Geo Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Large Hydro Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Combined Cycle Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Simple Cycle Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Petcoke-Fired PC Subcritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Nuclear PHWR Model3 – demo5b

Group 4 – Combined Heat & Power (CHP) and Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) Systems:

ADV Coal-Fired CFB Thermal Model3_50 MW CHP – demo5b

ADV Diesel Genset and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Genset and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Gasoline Genset and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Propane Simple Cycle and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Simple Cycle and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b



An Integrated Strategy for Asset Valuation and Disposal of Surplus and Redundant Power Generation Equipment

An Integrated Strategy for Asset Valuation and Disposal of Surplus and Redundant Power Generation Equipment

Mike Craigie

Managing Director

Craigie Engineering Sales & Services Ltd.


This paper outlines the recommended strategy for the valuation, marketing and disposal of surplus power plant.

In addition to assessing the overall extent and varied sources of such available equipment, the paper also looks closely at the various options which a utility can adopt when disposing of such plant, and also looks at the merits and potential difficulties to be considered when investigating the feasibility of adopting all or part of such equipment or plant into a new power project development.

A preliminary equipment/asset valuation guide is also included for discussion. The paper also takes a look at the industry’s changing attitude to the use of such plants, from the point of view of clients, OEM’s, owners and asset disposal managers.


The availability of ‘surplus’, canceled order, or ‘advanced order’ equipment at attractive cost and immediate delivery, is a worldwide phenomenon which has surprisingly few restrictions on capacity.

From our experiences over the past 20 years or so (while investigating the availability of such equipment), it is rare in fact to enter into discussions with any OEM, utility, major oil company, or large industrial group, and not find someone who does not have, or has had, ‘surplus’ unused equipment available from some project which was canceled, frustrated, or built ‘on spec’ and never found a buyer.

The term “surplus” equipment is most frequently used to avoid the pre-conceptions of some clients (and OEM’s) that what we are offering is basically someone else’s scrap:

Traditionally, up until the past few years at least, most of the leading manufacturers (OEM’s) would only consider offering refurbished equipment of their own manufacture, and even then only when their client could not afford the capital cost of new plant, or they could not convince the client that new equipment was a better option.

Most manufacturers have now dramatically changed their attitude to surplus equipment, with many more OEM’s now even purchasing, refurbishing and selling/renting other OEM’s equipment.  This trend is witnessed by GE’s strategic acquisition of GTS (Greenwich Turbine Services) and UNC-Metcalf, and Stewart & Stevenson (with Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Solar and now EGT/Ruston overhaul experience/capabilities).

Having now seen the successful implementation of several projects using surplus equipment, even the hardest of attitudes among clients (e.g. in the oil industry and with IPP developers) has changed remarkably and the general market perception is a move toward recycling and re-use wherever possible/practicable.


The reasons for such equipment becoming available are varied:

  1. Political or Environmental:
  1. The 2 x 350MW oil-fired units from the ‘Shimaal’ project which were canceled due to Iraq’s excursion into Kuwait.
  2. Many aborted nuclear plants in Germany, Italy, Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc.
  3. 300MW CCGT Power Barges for Pakistan cancelled by new government.
  4. 2 x 110MW hydro/pumped storage plants for Northern Ireland cancelled due to security concerns for the site.
  5. 8 x 1250MW nuclear plant cancelled by TVA/US Government in mid 1980’s

Total estimate:                    20,000MW

  1. Availability of Fuel/Grid Constraints:
  1. The 4 x 660MW coal-fired units canceled by ENEL when their government made a policy decision not to increase the country’s dependence on imported coal.
  2. The 2 x 300MW units in Northern Ireland which have been unused due to their oil-fired design and reduced electrical demand.
  3. The 2 x Frame 9E gas turbines from cancelled re-powering project.
  4. 2 X 9MW diesels built as speculative/’back door’ IPP, with no PPA (Power Purchase Agreement).
  5. 2 x 150MW V94.2 gas turbines which can’t be run due to severe grid constraints.
  6. Several CCGT plants in India (6FA and 9FA) which do not have access to gas

Total estimate:                    20,000MW

  1. Overestimated Load Growth or Demand:
  2. 250MW Marsden B oil-fired power plant in New Zealand, mothballed since 1980.
  3. The 5 x 100MW coal-fired units in RSA which have seen little use due to large nuclear plant and larger coal-fired units running on base load.
  4. Many similar large coal and orimulsion power plants in UK now available as not competitive (under power bid process) with nuclear and cogen/CCGT plants.
  5. The 25MW backpressure steam turbine generator in Eastern Europe never installed due to cheaper power coming on line from adjacent large coal-fired station.
  6. The 400MW coal-fired unit at Salt River in USA on which construction was terminated due to reduced load growth.
  7. The 230MW combined cycle/cogen plant in Wisconsin which was cancelled by WEPCO when their load growth was covered by alternative power sources.
  8. Many thousands of MW of CCGT and open cycle GT plants in Italy, UK, Netherlands, Germany, etc which are now redundant due to reduces energy consumption and move to wind energy.

Total Estimate:   30,000MW

  1. Industrial/IPP’s with Financial Problems
  2. The 3 x 4 MW Centaur gas turbines in chp/cogen application for ceramics factory in Indonesia,
  3. 6FA cogen/CCGT extraction unit in Italy which had steam to paper mill which has now shut down.
  4. 64 MW condensing turbine generator in Eastern Europe from canceled project.
  5. 4 x 12 MW HFO-fired diesel engines from cancelled shipbuilding project
  6. Many paper mill cogeneration applications in UK, Finland, France, Italy, which shut down due to paper mills not being competitive with Far East

Total Estimate:   10,000MW


Availability / Delivery:

This is not only a major factor favoring the use of cancelled-order, advance-order and unused equipment, but in many cases the available used equipment may already be overhauled or removed into storage ready for overhaul and rapid delivery, well in advance of corresponding delivery schedules for equivalent new equipment.

Cost / Economics:

The greatest advantage of utilizing ‘surplus’ equipment is of course usually the capital cost, but this option can not only be most financially advantageous, but also means that the equipment can be commissioned and ‘on line’ generating power (and steam/heat) within a very short period of time, leading to considerable savings in a number of areas:

  1. Construction cost is reduced due to lower overheads during the shorter period,
  2. Interest during construction (IDC) is reduced in direct proportion, and
  3. The developing company’s overheads in an IPP situation are also minimized to the extent that “up-front” profit can be increased by inflating the cost of the installed plant in line with the maximum installed cost which will satisfy the lead financing agency.
  4. In addition to these is the considerable benefit of early revenue.

For example, if one was to place an order on a 4MW cogen plant and wait 12 months for delivery with 6 months to deliver and install, a client purchasing a similar surplus unit with foundation designs and wiring diagrams modified easily to suit their site conditions could have the unit installed and commissioned in 3 – 4 months.

During this advantageous 14 month difference, that same plant could generate power alone worth over US$ 1 Million, (excluding the extra profit from steam sales) at 2.5 cents/kWh, and this is only a 4 Mw plant.

Imagine then the comparative savings in having a 300MW CCGT plant on line 14 months or more ahead of schedule. (US$ 75 Million in earned revenue using the same 2.5 cents/kWh)

Note:  Most modern turbine packages (e.g. Frame 6, Taurus or W251) are either 50 or 60 Hz machines with only a gearbox alteration required.  In fact the 60 Hz alternators at 13,800 V (1800 or 3600 RPM) are the same as used in the 50 Hz machines and re-adjusted on the voltage regulators to give 11,000 V at the relevant 50 Hz speeds (1500 or 3000 RPM)

Retained Equity

The other significant, and possibly the most important feature of utilizing such immediately available and ‘surplus equipment’ is that the owners will often be willing to retain part equity in any viable IPP development, thereby making overall project finance more accessible.

It is of course more attractive from their point of view to take a steady return on a retained equity/investment on the plant over several years, rather than continue to absorb the often substantial costs of storing the completed equipment at the OEM’s (original equipment manufacturers) factory and see its residual or resale value diminish at an even more alarming rate.

Valuation of the available plant:

At this stage it may be worth making a brief study of the likely cost or value of such surplus equipment. – Refer to Graph A

Firstly, let’s look at a typical depreciation in any type of power plant (diesel, gas or steam turbine) and the value of regular major overhauls and “zero hour” overhauls – Graph A.

Secondly, if we make the assumption (as most accountants would do) that straight-line depreciation of power plant takes place over 10, 15 or even 25 years.

From our own past experience and our ongoing involvement in the valuation, marketing, and sourcing of suitable surplus equipment, we have found it best (i.e. closest match), in the case of gas turbines particularly, to assume the designed 20 year life span of the equipment.

“Negative Equity” – Refer to Graph B

Obviously, the recent and substantial reductions in the delivered cost of new equipment have had a significant impact on the inherent value of both used and unused power plant. (e.g. Frame 6 units sold for US$ 10-11 Million 7-8 years ago, then dropped to US$ 7-8 M with over-supply 3-4 years ago, and now are listed (GTW Handbook 2001-2) at around US$ 13 Million.

This has given rise to the most unlikely scenario about 4 years ago, where the equipment value (in book terms), which an owner believed his equipment was worth, was substantially more than the real cost of similar/identical replacement units.

Aero-derivative Gas Turbines – Graph C

With this in mind we would note the anticipated selling price (FOB) for a 15 year old Centaur T4000, in operating condition, with basic/operational spare parts and full maintenance history, recent overhaul, and all ancillary equipment (coolers, inlet/exhaust, etc.), of around US$ 550,000.

Industrial Gas Turbines – Refer to Graph D

Here we have chosen to highlight the estimated cost for a 10 year old GE Frame 6 (38 Mw), again delivered FOB, with operational spares, auxiliaries, recent overhaul, and full maintenance history, at around US$ 6.5 M.

Proven Reliability/Availability

With most equipment, which has already been installed and operated, a full maintenance and operational history is usually available.

Technical Service Bulletins will also be available, highlighting the changes in maintenance and operating procedures, which have been recommended over the years for best performance; based on operating experiences within not only the existing plant but all other similar plants worldwide.  User symposiums will also have identified specific areas for concern and a wealth of historical documentation can usually be easily accessed.


New equipment manufacturers (OEM’s) continue to drive forward at a relentless pace to achieve that extra 0.5% increased efficiency and/or that 1% reduction in emissions, which also employing new combustion techniques, such as dry low NOx combustion.

These efforts often lead to reduced flame instability and less margin for error in T1 and T2 temperatures, giving cause for concern, particularly now by the insurers of such plants.

Overhaul & Maintenance Facilities/Support:

Another major benefit of surplus equipment, which has been installed within the market for several years, is that there will be many sources of supply, not only for spare parts and overhaul but also for upgrade and experienced Operation & Maintenance (O & M) contractors.

There will also usually be a wealth of supporting services available for replacement blades, coatings, upgrade/replacement of control systems, vibration monitoring equipment, etc.

Valuation & Disposal Strategy

We typically recommend that surplus plant owners give themselves the maximum period of marketing prior to final decommissioning or dismantling. This then gives them a longer and more realistic period of finding the ‘right buyer with the appropriate project application.

With most owners preferring to sell such plant on an as-is, where-is basis, the frequently onerous cost of decommissioning and dismantling can be avoided, as this would then typically be borne by the purchaser, further saving the owner substantial costs.

Prior to entering into the marketing phase the most important criteria for successful disposal is to set realistic and attainable recovery/selling prices which match other surplus and new equipment in terms of price, scope and availability, with reasonable balancing of residual and elapsed lifetime. Allowance has also to be made for performance, spare part availability, terms of purchase, location and accessibility of site, etc.

Many brokers or marketing agents will attempt to secure lucrative contracts, which often require burdensome provision of project and on-site managers, advertising costs, with little or no margin for success-based incentives.

CESS usually recommend, and prefer to enter into, contracts which allow recovery of some or all of the hard costs, but with all of the profit-based elements of the contract linked directly to the success in finding the right end-user, willing to purchase at the best terms and highest recoverable cost to the owner.

Summary & Conclusions:

Unused and used but serviceable or overhauled power plants are available from the smaller 1 – 2MW gas and steam turbine units, right up to 1200MW, and the availability of such equipment is rarely a reflection of the lack of demand or unsuitability of the equipment, but can more commonly be linked to a lack of market knowledge of what is available.


How do we stabilize the grid with higher penetration of renewables?

How Do We Stabilize The Grid With Higher Penetration Of Renewables?

Chris James

The energy industry is in the process of understanding the full scope of renewable energy on the grid.

As more renewables are added onto the grid, the stability of the grid is generally decreasing. This is because the continuously rotating mass connected to the grid (turbines and generators on the production end) inherently stabilizes grid frequency. When those systems are taken offline and replaced by renewable energy systems, frequency stabilization becomes an increasing challenge.

Coal-fired power plants and gas turbines are examples. These systems have a lot of mass, and when they are rotating, they store energy. In the past, these systems have been beneficial for the grid because they rotate continuously and are difficult to slow down. If a large load makes a demand on the grid, say an industrial plant turns on a large device that pulls a lot of power, it still takes time to slow down these big machines so they may be able to, at least for short periods of time, source extra power into the grid.

This presents a challenge with clean alternatives. Normally, a solar panel system can’t generate more than what it’s already producing; the system is designed to always run at its maximum capacity. Wind turbines are similar. It would seem that there’s a lot of rotating mass in a wind turbine, but compared to a fast, massive traditional turbine, the wind turbine rotates slowly and doesn’t actually have that much energy in its rotating mass. Also, the clean energy systems being interconnected to the grid must synchronize with the existing grid frequency rather than drive the grid frequency. If you draw a lot of power for a short period of time, or overload the grid, the grid frequency starts lowering, and current clean energy systems can’t compensate for that. This is where ultracapacitors, also called supercapacitors, can be implemented to help compensate for high power transient loads.

The majority of events which destabilize the grid are fairly short. Studies have shown that a majority of grid disruptions are less than a few seconds long. That’s an indicator that destabilization events that are happening on the grid can be stabilized with ultracapacitors, which specialize in short-term, very high power, lower energy content storage.

If one measures the grid frequency very precisely, an ultracapacitor paired with a very large power inverter could push power back into the grid or pull power depending on the grid frequency swings, creating a “virtual rotating mass.” It also may be that a centralized approach will be used where operation centers for the grid dispatch energy storage as needed for stabilization.

The grid is made up of different segments, and there are some that locally have an abundance of power and some need power to be sourced from afar, as power has to be provided where the loads are. In some cases, centralized operation centers may best be able to deal with a power deficit or overabundance by commanding storage systems to come online to compensate for a grid event. On the other hand, since some control decisions have to happen very quickly to be effective, some storage systems may run themselves by self-monitoring a grid segment and reacting to changes. It’s likely that ultracapacitor-based stabilization systems will need to be autonomous like this, because they must react very fast to be effective. I imagine we will need to employ a variety of energy storage systems to meet our needs. This is a new area for the industry, so different approaches are still under exploration.

The traditional grid is self-stabilizing to a high degree. As clean energy sources that are variable continue to be added to the grid, it will be necessary to provide additional stabilization such as adding large-scale energy storage. It’s general industry knowledge that the lowest cost energy storage available is pumped hydroelectric storage. One problem with pumped hydroelectric storage is it can’t be turned on and off immediately. Time is required for spinning up/down these systems, and it seems that they also will need to be coupled with some sort of rapid stabilization.

Let’s say you’re using energy flowing directly from the wind and sun, and the turbines are off. What happens when you have another load? You will have to spin your turbines up. You need a short-term energy storage to ride through the increase in demand while you bring up the sources. It may be that you have battery systems that can achieve that. I think that ultracapacitors are poised to serve this application best in the long-term: If your lowest cost energy storage system doesn’t always source energy immediately, then you need something to bridge the gap, and ultracapacitors are in a good position to do just that.

The grid stability problem is going to stick around. It’s possible that the grid will need large ultracapacitor farms or other means to stabilize it. If stabilizing a grid fed by renewables is the goal, microcycling batteries may prove inefficient. Ultracapacitors, on the other hand, are designed for high cycle applications that require long life and are a viable option for stabilizing a renewables grid. I believe ultracapacitors will provide a very effective buffering solution as we increase the amount of clean energy technology that we employ.

This post was originally published by Maxwell Technologies and was reposted with permission.