Variable fuel cost

Variable Fuel Cost for an 825-M v LMFR For various processing cycles... 

Some basic BW treatment objectives include keeping boiler surfaces clean and corrosion-free to minimize fuel bills and managing variable quality FW smoothly and efficiently to limit upsets and other downstream problems. But the nature of potential boiler deposition problems changes with increases in pressure and, simply put, is primarily concerned with a reduction in simple, hardness-related deposits and an increase in complex, iron oxide deposits. The effect of dirty boilers on fuel costs can be seen in Figure 10.4. 

The variable operating costs include the consumption of feed + fuel, cooling water and electricity. For their evaluation, it was taken into account that in the actual economic scenario the costs of such a scheme are mainly related to those of the natural gas and of the plant thermal efficiency. The evaluation is reported in Table 9.3. 

Economically, the advantages of TDF can be very site-specific. Primary, or base load, fuel costs vary significantly, as does the delivered cost of TDF. TDF supplies a consistent and dry Btu input to boilers. This is an important advantage because the wood wastes typically fed to the hog-fuel boilers have a high and variable moisture content, which makes hog-fuel boiler operation a challenge. Availability of TDF is a problem at some mills. The costs of TDF -to a pulp and paper mill is affected by whether there is a tipping (tire disposal) fee or State rebate incentives... 

The equations of constraint link the cost estimate through the system s thermodynamic performance to fuel costs. The thermodynamic analysis must relate the variables used to describe the system s performance to those used in the cost estimate. In this problem, costing equations are used which are generally in terms of stream and performance variables. Thus the thermodynamic analysis need only be in terms of these variables. Sixteen equations of constraint have been developed from a thermodynamic analysis of the cycle, and are given in Table III. 

This procedure can be used to generate a variety of data. It is possible to parametrically vary any or all of the fixed decision variables. The parameters that were varied (Table VI) included fuel cost (CF), work/heat ratio (W/Q), and hot water temperature (TB). The strategem was to monitor the change in the optimal design by changing fuel cost and work output for several hot water requirements. In this manner, given the economic conditions and hot water requirements, the optimal amount of shaft work can be selected from these suboptimizations. 

The one decision variable that remains relatively unaffected by the cost of fuel is the boiler pressure drop coefficient, AR. This decision variable seems to decrease slightly or remain stable as fuel costs rise. This seems to indicate that the effect of the boiler pressure drop, AR, is dominated by the benefit which can be gained by altering other system parameters. 

The design space for the cogeneration system described in this paper consists of five independent variables and three key parameters that reflect the "market" conditions fuel cost, electricity cost, and the required hot water temperature. Then, for each set of market conditions the system was suboptimized. 

The first term in this equation reflects fuel costs and alternatively could be expressed in terms of the system inefficiencies and the system utility costs. The second term is indicative of the capital investment. However, the system inefficiencies and the capital investment are functions of the design variables. 

Thus minimization of the unit cost of product involves a function that is dependent on only the utility or fuel costs and the design variables. 

This paper has provided a framework for further application of Second Law based design methodology to separation systems. It has done so by providing a relationship that gives the available-energy destruction for a binary separation as a function of the process variables for the case in which the entropy production is primarily due to mass transfer effects. The Second Law methodology has been described and applied to a simple binary separation system. The method yields results identical to those obtained from a traditional direct search technique, and accurately indicates the respective trade-offs between fuel costs and capital investment. 

Variable Operating Cost Fixed Operating Cost Capital Charges Total Fueling Station Cost... 

Variable operating cost Feedstock Electricity Catalyst Sludge disposal Fuel cost Total ... 

Though the basic feasibility and the attractive economics of hydrogen pipelines are not in dispute, the details are in dispute because of the myriad of variables that come into play, including pipeline diameters and pressures, spacing of compression stations, materials, embrittlement, fuel costs for pumping stations, types of compressors available, and the geographical locations of sources of hydrogen. 

Developed comprehensive model for analyzing hydrogen fueling station costs, including capital, operating, and maintenance cost elements. Included Monte Carlo techniques to account for uncertainty and variability in cost drivers. 

Temperature is a particularly important variable in industrial combustion applications because it directly or indirectly affects a number of other important variables. The product temperature is often a critical parameter in most processes. While there is usually a minimum temperature that must be reached for adequate processing, there may also be a maximum temperature above which product quality is reduced. Higher than necessary product temperatures not only increase fuel costs, but they may also increase cooling costs after the product exits the combustion process. Temperature affects the heat transfer in a furnace [1]. Thermal NOx emissions are exponentially dependent on flame temperatures [2]. Combustion chemistry is very complicated and dependent on temperature. High exhaust gas temperatures mean reduced thermal efficiency [3]. 

Within the Production section, there are hyperlinks to detailed analyses of the six hydrogen production options included in H2Sim. Figure 9.3 illustrates the natural gas reformation option. This screen also illustrates the default model results. Key assumptions on each production page include capital, operation and maintenance, and fuel costs, thermal efficiency of the process, interest and discount rates, construction time, plant life, and capacity factor. While some of the assumptions are specific to that production option, changes to assumed interest or discount rates apply to the entire model. Any shaded boxes, such as capital recovery factor, cannot be changed by the user, but will change as other variables (in this case discount rate) do. With the exception of... 

Through the changes in the decision variables, the value of the objective function C/>,<, is reduced from 4587/h to 3913/h, and the cost rate associated with the exergy loss C5 decreased from 499/h to 446/h. The new values of the thermoeconomic variables are summarized in Table VII. The sum Z + Cd shows that the air compressor and the gas turbine expander are still the most important components from the thermoeconomic viewpoint. The importance of both components is due to the relatively high investment cost rate and, to a lesser extent, to the high fuel cost Cf for these components. The... 

Although the cost components should be estimated rigorously in principle, it could be a good approximation to estimate the variable steam price with the approximation based on the fuel cost ... 

AOpEx is incremental change in variable energy cost, which consists of fuel and BFW costs but not the fixed cost. The fixed cost does not have an effect on marginal price because the fixed cost is cancelled out in the calculation of AOpEx. In reality, the fixed cost has already taken place no matter how much incremental change occur in steam production. 

The resulting LCOE for the NGCC without CO2 capture is 54.10 /MWh. As shown in Table 14.8, most of the LCOE depends on fuel costs, while the sum of fixed and variable costs accounts for less than 10%. In the CO2 capture case, the LCOE increases by 15 /MWh as a consequence of the higher investment costs and lower efficiency, which leads to higher specific fuel consumption. The calculated cost of CO2 avoided is 47.5 //co2 aligned with costs presented in other studies (Finkenrath,2011 GHG lA, 2011 NETL, 2010). 

The calculated LCOE (see Table 14.12) is higher than the reference cases previously presented. The more significant difference is in the variable cost, which increases by 125% due to the cost of membrane replacement. The fuel costs are quite similar because of the similar efficiency. The calculated... 

A comparison of variable operation costs for a devolatilisation extruder versus purge air treatment through a regenerative thermal oxidation unit is given in Table 12.8 below. The calculation is based on an electricity price of EUR 0.05/kWh and a fuel price of EUR... 

The costs of utilities are directly influenced by the cost of fuel. Specific difficulties emerge when estimating the cost of fuel, which directly inpact the price of utilities such as electricity, steam, and thermal fluids. Figure 8.1 shows the general trends for fossil fuel costs from 1991 to 2006. The costs presented represent average values and are not site specific. These costs do not reflect the wide variability of cost and availability of various fuels throughout the United States. 

---