Equipment costs, estimation installation

This chart (Figure 24) reflects the combination of the facility cost estimate together with the equipment cost estimate tailored to stocks currently located at the installations. The deletion of the non-explosive wings from the Anniston, Lexington-Blue Grass and Pueblo facilities is reflected in the facility and equipment costs. 

For reasons of confidentiality, exact details of the reactor designs have to remain undisclosed in this discussion. The final economic analysis, however, incorporates them in a 20% estimate of the major equipment cost. The installation factor, defined as the ratio of the final cost over the cost of major equipment items, is projected to be in the order of 2 here, as foundations, piping, general infrastructure will be far less extensive in this compact and highly physically integrated plant. Table 3.4 compares the cost of methanol produced for three cases ... 

Equipment Costs. Methods 3, 4, and 5 under fixed capital cost estimating methods require equipment cost estimates based on published references. Table 4-G is an index of cost sources for process equipment. In the next few pages of this chapter there are presented Figures 6-3 to C-30, which are installed cost data derived largely from Chilton or Aries and Newton. Arrangement is by alphabetical order of equipment titles,... 

Equipment specifications were prepared and illustrated in Chap. 4. Table 6-22 could thus be worked out, using individual equipment cost estimates from this book and others. The installed cost on a 1958 basis for the process equipment alone was 216,570. Table 6-24 was next prepared from figures available from the process flow sheet and other reasonable economic facts as discussed in here. Note that short-cut methods were employed where possible since only comparative economies were desired for this type of profitability analysis. Results show that a crude BHC plant at the production level recommended is unprofitable and definitely should not be considered further. 

Refrain from purchasing any reactor until inn installation cost estimates have been added to the equipment cost. Escalating installation costs are the rule rather than the exception. 

SuperPro Designer estimates equipment cost using built-in cost correlations that are based on data derived from a number of vendors and literature sources. In addition, users have the flexibility to enter their own data and correlations for equipment cost estimation. The fixed capital investment is estimated based on equipment cost using various multipliers, some of which are equipment specific (e.g., installation cost) while others are plant specific (e.g., cost of piping, buildings, etc.). This approach is described in detail in the literatrue [6,142]. The rest of this section provides a summary of the cost analysis results for this example process. Table 15.2 shows the key economic evaluation results for this project. Key assumptions for the economic evaluations include 1) a new production suite will be built and dedicated to the manufacturing of this product 2) the entire direct fixed capital is depreciated linearly over a period of twelve years 3) the project lifetime is 15 years, and 4) 27,000 kg of final product is produced per year. 

It should be emphasized that capital cost estimates using installation factors are at best crude and at worst highly misleading. When preparing such an estimate, the designer spends most of the time on the equipment costs, which represent typically 20 to 40 percent of the total installed cost. The bulk costs (civil engineering, labor, etc.) are factored costs which lack definition. At best, this type of estimate can be expected to be accurate to 30 percent. 

Equipment Costs. Equipment costs include the purchased cost of process and materials handling equipment, storage faciUties, waste treatment equipment, stmctures, and site service faciUties. Installation costs such as insulation, piping, painting and finishing, foundations, process stmctures, instmmentation, and electrical service connections are estimated or factored separately. Actual quoted prices from suppHers are the best data, but these are not usually available when estimates are made. The quick, inexpensive cost estimates are based largely on personal cost files, internal company cost data, or pubUshed cost correlations. 

Piping Estimation The cost of fabrication and installation of process-plant piping appears to range from 18 to 61 percent of the FOB equipment cost as indicated in Table 9-56. This would normally represent about 7 to 15 percent of the installed plant cost and is obviously a significant item. The various available piping-estimation methods are as follows ... 

Capital costs can be estimated by applying installation factors to the purchase costs of individual items of equipment. However, there is considerable uncertainty associated with cost estimates obtained in this way, as equipment costs are typically only 20 to 40% of the total installed costs, with the remainder based on factors. Utility investment, off-site investment and working capital are also needed to complete the capital investment. The capital cost can be annualized by considering it as a loan over a fixed period at a fixed rate of interest. 

Guthrie15 listed the cost of a water-treatment system. However, it is not known what this included. From his data the cost of the complete water-treatment system, installed, was estimated as 27,300. Since the equipment costs are needed for certain estimates, they had to be obtained from the installed cost. It was assumed that the major cost in constructing a sand filter (see Chapter 16) would be on-site labor. This gives an F.O.B. price of around 5,000 for the sand filter. 

The projected size of the installation is also encouraging Based upon cost estimates for MCFC facilities, including ancillary equipment, this installation is estimated at 5.1 MM, or about 10/kW (installed). This also compares favorably with present treatment techniques, which range from 100 to 250/kW. 

Electrical This item consists of transformers, wiring, switching gear, as well as instrumentation and control wiring. The installed costs of the electrical items may be estimated as 20 to 40 percent of the delivered equipment costs or 5 to 10 percent of the fixed capital investment for preliminary estimates. As with piping estimation, the process design must be well along toward completion before detailed electrical takeoffs can be made. 

Based on results of a study conducted by ARDEC, LaJeunesse et al. estimated the equipment cost of a pilot-scale SCWO research facility to be 615,000. They stated that construction and installation costs would increase the total cost by a factor of 2 or more. These 1994 estimates were based on the performance of a bench-scale Sandia unit with an average flow rate of 1.0 to 1.5 g/sec. For this study, the following assumptions were used ... 

In 1994, capital costs for a fluidized-bed oxidation unit were estimated based on data from a demonstration at Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Oscoda, Michigan. The cost estimate included 83,000 for equipment and 15,000 for installation (D14874X, p. 5.4). 

As part of the U.S. DOE Heavy Metals in Contaminated Soils Treatability Project, total cost for the air classifier system was estimated at 1.28 (1995 dollars) per ton of material treated. Equipment costs were estimated at 151,375 and installation costs were estimated at 277,062 for a total capital cost of 378,437 or 0.18 per ton, assuming the system s operating lifetime was 10 years. Parts were estimated at 0.05 per ton, electricity was estimated at 0.05 per ton, and labor was estimated at 1.00 per ton, for a total operating cost of 1.10 per ton. 

---