Plant construction costs

TABLE 9-63 Relative Plant Construction Costs in Various Countries Compared with the United States... 

Utility Data Institute. (1994). Electric Utility Power Plant Construction Costs. Washington DC Utility Data Institute. 

Accounting, plant construction costs, 48 Cost accumulation, 49 Affinity laws, 201, 202, 203 Air Inleakage, vacuum systems, see vacuum systems Air pressure drop, table, 106 Chart, 114 Orifice flow, 107 Air, absolute viscosity, 132... 

The completion date has an effect on the cost, if for no other reason than the change of prices and salaries with time. In the 1960s there was approximately a2.5% increase in plant construction costs per year and a similar increase in equipment costs. Between 1970 and 1974, the rates were 3 and 5% respectively. 

In view of rapidly increasing raw material prices and plant construction costs, as well as more stringent environmental standards, it is likely that future practices will favor high-efficiency processes which operate under mild reaction conditions with few by-products. Modified rhodium is advantageous in these respects, as shown in Tables XXXIII and XXXIV. In view of the recent successes with commercial rhodium systems (103, 104, 130, 131), it is likely that these will find more extensive use in the next few years. 

Increasing temperature has also an important role. Near complete conversion of soybean triglycerides requires only 3 h at 117 C, whereas comparable conversions at 77 °C require 20h. On the other hand, high temperatures and high methanol-to-oil ratios also imply high pressures and consequently plant construction costs are high. 

The parameters that have to be established for all existing and potential plants and products include amongst others input factor costs, demand volumes and prices. While some of these parameters such as plant operation costs or transportation costs can be determined (and to a lesser extent forecasted) relatively easily, others such as plant construction costs or demand volumes and prices are much more difficult to establish. 

The power plant construction cost index (PCCI) tracks the costs of building coal, gas, wind, and nuclear power plants, indexed to the year 2000 — registered 231 index points in the third quarter of 2007 ending in October — indicating that a power plant that in 2000 cost 1 billion in 2007 would have cost 2.31 billion. 

If the plant is ready for operation after one year of construction time and the startup of the plant is designated as zero time, the future worth of the plant construction cost after n years with continuous interest compounding is... 

Basis for Plant Design. The composition of municipal refuse is assumed as shown in Table III. The municipal refuse has the lower calorific value of ca. 1,500 Kcal/Kg. Plant size of 600 T/D is assumed. The capital investment costs, utilities, etc. were calculated using contacts with equipment vendors. Cost for repairs are assumed to be two percent of the plant construction cost per year. Unit costs of utilities and unit prices of recovered energy and material are assumed, based on the actual prices in 1979. Ash and other residues disposal cost is assumed to be 2,450 Yen/T, taking note of the representative cost data of large cities in Japan, The grant available to a municipality is assumed to pay up to fifty percent of the capital investment. The remaining investment cost must be amortized in fifteen years with the interest rate of six percent. 

Since this process is simple, the plant construction cost is low, and the MMA yield is high thus, the cost/benefit is high, and it can be said that it is a process... 

The soil s character and the underground water level are important factors. High water levels and heavy soils could increa plant construction costs by 7%-12% in comparison with light sands with low w ater levels. 

PNC has defined 10 key technical issues to be attained for commercialization of FBRs. In 1988, PNC started plant design study applying key technologies such as reactor vessel head access concept and performed plant construction cost evaluation. 

A three dimensional seismic isolation system for the reactor building is adopted to achieve the standardization of design. The base size of the building is 40mx40m, and the height is 55m. Shortening the construction schedule on-site is very important to reduce the plant construction costs, thus an optimum combination of steel structure and concrete structure is being considered. 

The omission of the "renewable" energies— hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal energies—from Table 24.1 is noteworthy because the "fuel" costs of these plants is essentially zero. The construction (capital costs) divided by the capacity factors (giving an effective construction cost per unit output) of these plants is quite high compared to the conventional fossil fuel and nuclear plant construction costs. Hence, comparisons of actual total costs of the various forms of generating electricity must include capital costs as well as operating costs and the effective capacity factors. 

Table 24.8 compares the factors involved in total costs for these various methods of generating electricity. The construction costs are the most uncertain, or have the potential for the greatest variation, primarily because of the serious inflation that has occurred with construction material prices in the last two years. As for fuel costs, the most volatile are the natural gas costs for the GTCC plants. Construction costs are likely to vary because of site differences, regulatory approval delays, weather abnormalities, and legal challenges during construction. 

In nuclear plants, construction cost is strongly dependent on the technology selected, on the seismic characteristics of the site and on the local rules and regulations affecting the type and cost of active safeguard systems and passive protection systems. For these reasons, every attempt at cost evaluation when not aimed at a specific design solution is rather approximate. As a result of this effort, the number of main components (pumps, valves, tanks, etc.) in the MARS plant is reduced to about 50%, with respect to traditional PWRs of the same rated power. 

The costs associated with this supply chain include plant construction costs, plant and warehouse fixed operating costs, raw material costs, variable production costs, production quantity change costs, shipping costs, and holding costs. The total cost for a given planning horizon can then be expressed as the sum of these respective costs ... 

For commercial solar-thermal power plants, construction costs are estimated to be twice those associated with a modem coal power station and three times the costs of a gas power station. Commercial solar-photovoltaic power plants cost between 0.20/kWh and 0.60/kWh (compared to the cost of 0.035-0.060/kWh for a coal-fired power station and 0.040-0.063/kWh for a gas-fired power station) [14]. 

---