Combined Cycle Power Plant

A PROPOSED DESIGN OF 155 MW COMBINED STEAM AND GAS POWER
PLANT SYSTEM AT BRGY. BACONG IBABA, GENERAL LUNA, QUEZON
A Project Proposal
Presented to the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Department
College of Engineering
Batangas State University – ALANGILAN
Alangilan, Batangas City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
by
CASTILLO, FERNAN BONG B.

COLEGIO, IVAN Y.
COMIA, GARRY JAMES R.
DALANGIN, VINCENT M.
DAVID, HAYDEE A.
May 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures viii
I. Design Background 1
Introduction 1
Rationale of the Study 3
Target Location of the Plant 5
Load Survey 13
Capitalization 28
Ownership 29
Organizational Structure 30
II. Technical Design 34
Theoretical Consideration 34
Design Objectives 41
Scope of the Design 42
Design Data 43
1. Brayton Cycle 44
2. Rankine Cycle 49
Design Options Calculations 53
1. Design Option 1 69
Description of the Process 122
ii
Summary of Equipment Selection 128
Plant Design and Specification Layout 136
III. Economic Analysis 141
Power Demand Analysis 141
Capital Expenditures 143
Operating Expenditures 165
Economic Evaluation 197
1. Net Present Value 205
2. Return on Investment 210
3. Payback Period 211
Sensitivity Analysis 212
IV. Environmental Management 220
Environmental Impact Assessment 220
Social Considerations 222
Political Considerations 224
Ethical Considerations 225
Health Requirements 225
Safety Requirements 227
DENR Standards 228
Waste Management 232
Pollutant Emissions 233
V. Project Construction Execution Plan 234
Construction Management and Strategy 234
Quality Control and Assurance 237
Work Scheduling 239
Overall Management and Commissioning of the Project 243
iii
VI. Project Design Trade-offs 245
Analysis of Technical Aspects 245
Analysis of Economic Conditions 246
Analysis of Environmental Conditions 250
Pareto Optimum Analysis for the Design Options 252
Best Design Option 254
VII. Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations 256
Summary of Findings 256
Conclusions 258
Recommendations 259
References
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page
1 Number of Consumer of QUEZELCO I in the year 2016 14

8 Daily Average Load 19
9 Daily Peak Load 21
10 Projected Load Demand 24
11 Properties of Natural Gas 44
12 Natural Gas Composition 45
13 Climatic Conditions 46
14 Data for Air Compressor 47
15 Data for Gas Turbine 48
16 Data for Steam Turbine 50
17 Data for Condenser 51
18 Data for Condensate Pump 52
19 Data for Feed Pump 53
20 Specific Heats of C p and Cv 61
21 Summary of C p and Cv of Fuel 66
22 Summary of C p and Cv of Air 66
23 Summary of Calculated Values for Air-Fuel Mixture 68
24 Summary of Calculations for Gas Cycle of Design Option 1 75
25 Summary of Calculations for Steam Cycle of Design Option 1 82
26 Summary of Calculations for Design Option 1 83
v
33 Summary of Equipment for Design Option 1 130
36 Projected Load Demand 141
37 Total Land Cost 145
38 Mechanical Equipment Costs for Design Option 1 145
41 Direct Building Cost for Design Option 1 154
44 Indirect Building Cost for Design Option 1 161
47 Total Capital Expenditure for Design Option 1 163
50 Total Labor Cost for Design Option 1 180
53 Total Miscellaneous Cost for Design Option 1 190
56 Total Fuel Cost for Design Option 1 193
vi
59 Total Operating Expenditure for Design Option 1 194
62 Total Project Cost for Design Option 1 196
65 Customer Sales 198
66 Sales Breakdown 200
67 Total Annual Revenue for Design Option 1 202
68 Summary of Design Option 1 212
71 Work Schedule of the Combined Cycle Power Plant 239
72 Cycle Efficiency Scale 244
73 Cycle Efficiency Analysis 245
74 Net Present Value Scale 246
75 Net Present Value Analysis 246
76 Payback Period Scale 247
77 Payback Period Analysis 248
78 Rate of Return Scale 248
79 Rate of Return Analysis 249
80 Mass of Fuel Scale 250
81 Mass of Fuel Analysis 250
82 Degree of Importance for Multiple Realistic Constraints 251
83 Pareto Optimum Analysis for Design Option 1 252
86 Summary of Results for Pareto Optimum Analysis 255
vii
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1 Project Location Site 5

2 Salinity of Soil 6
3 Marketing Area 7
4 Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to General Luna Port 8
5 Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to Catanauan Power Station 8
6 Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to QUEZELCO 1 Main 9
7 Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to Tayabas Bay 9
8 Zoning Map of General Luna, Quezon 10
9 Land Area for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba 11
10 Elevation for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba 11
11 Slope for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba 12
12 Administrative Map of General Luna, Quezon 13
13 Classification of QUEZELCO I Consumers 14
14 Daily Average Load from 2020-2022 15
15 Daily Peak Load from 2020-2022 24
16 Yearly Peak Load for 2020-2022 24
17 Projected Demand Load Curve 26
18 Power Plant Capitalization Shares 29
19 Organizational Chart of Combined Steam and Gas Power Plant 32
20 Gas Turbine 36
21 Air Compressor 37
22 Combustion Chamber 37
23 Steam Turbine 38
24 Heat Recovery Steam Generator 38
25 Generator 39
26 Feed Water Pump 39
27 Condensate Pump 40
viii
28 Open Feedwater Heater 40
29 Condenser 41
30 Control Volume at Compressor for Design Option 1 73
31 Control Volume at Combustion Chamber for Design Option 1 73
32 Control Volume at Gas Turbine for Design Option 1 74
33 Control Volume at Steam Turbine for Design Option 1 79
34 Control Volume at Pump for Design Option 1 80
35 Control Volume at HRSG for Design Option 1 80
36 Control Volume at Condenser for Design Option 1 81
39 Control Volume at Gas Turbine for Design Option 2 88
40 Control Volume at Steam High Pressure Turbine for Design Option 2 95
41 Control Volume at Steam Low Pressure Turbine for Design Option 2 96
42 Control Volume at Pump for Design Option 2 97
47 Control Volume at High Pressure Gas Turbine for Design Option 3 107
48 Control Volume at Reheater for Design Option 3 107
49 Control Volume at Low Pressure Gas Turbine for Design Option 3 117
50 Control Volume at Steam High Pressure Turbine for Design Option 3 118
51 Control Volume at Steam Low Pressure Turbine for Design Option 3 118
52 Control Volume at Pump I for Design Option 3 119
53 Control Volume at Pump II for Design Option 3 119
56 Cycle Diagram for Design Option 1 124
57 T-s Diagram for Design Option 1 124
ix
62 Combined Cycle Power Plant Layout in Isometric View 136
63 Combined Cycle Power Plant Layout in Top View 137
64 Cash Flow Diagram 205
65 Sensitivity Analysis for Design Option 1 216
68 Process Flow for Conventional Power Projects 229
69 Plant Layout of the Power Plant 236
x
CHAPTER I
DESIGN BACKGROUND
This chapter introduces the design background of the project, which involves the
type of power plant as well as the site selection considering the factors such as the target
customers and their load demands. Furthermore, it also determines the requirements for
the capitalization and ownership along with the organizational structure for the plant’s
operation. Lastly, an evaluation of the load survey in an hourly manner will be used to
establish the plant’s capacity together with its 15-year load demand projection.
Introduction
A power plant system is a facility that provides the energy required for daily
operations such as transportation, lighting, and the production of goods and services. It
generates electricity from primary sources, either conventional or alternative, which is
then transmitted and distributed to the consumers.
The country's growing population necessitates an increase in electricity
consumption. From the past years until the present times, numerous places in the
Philippines still experience uninterrupted power supply through rotational brown-outs.
Currently seen in news are the six power plants being reported for unforeseen power
outages, resulting in brownouts as expected by the Department of Energy to the Luzon
grid (Crismundo, 2022). This was due to the load demand exceeding the forecasted one.
In line with this, the province of Quezon, belonging to the region of CALABARZON,
has listed numerous power plants fired with coal. These are the following: 1,200 MW
Atimonan power plant, 735 MW Pagbilao power plant, and 500 MW Mauban power
plant. However, some type of situation occurs when energy production is disrupted by
1
severe weather conditions such as heavy rain, strong winds, and overflowing rivers and
dams. Droughts and heat waves can also reduce the availability of water as a primary
source for hydroelectric power plants. Meanwhile, in some areas, the grid's power supply
is still insufficient. Hence, the idea of planning the construction of power plants emerges
in areas with sufficient resources to address inadequacy in power supply during daily or
peak demand.
On the other hand, resources can be classified into renewable and non-renewable,
wherein natural gas, as one of the non-renewable resources, serves as the most widely
used source of electricity in the country. The Philippines had 3.48 trillion cubic feet of
recognized gas reserves as of 2017, which is 31.4 times its annual consumption. Thus, at
the current rate of energy consumption, there are roughly 31 years of gas left which is
until the year 2048. However, as consumer demand grows, natural gas reserves may be
depleted, making the use of renewable or alternative energy sources highly
recommended.
In this proposed combined cycle power plant, natural gas will be combined with
steam, an example of alternative energy. Since the Philippines is surrounded by bodies of
water, it is possible for steam to be one of the most abundant renewable sources of
electricity. Particularly, the province of Quezon has these municipalities that have easy
access to the sea and supply of natural gas. Whereas, utilizing this steam power system
will not only reduce the use of non-renewable sources such as natural gas, but is also
good for the environment since it emits fewer or no greenhouse gases, which are harmful
to people's health.
2
As a result, combined natural gas and steam will be used to address the concerns
on availability of energy, increasing consumer demand, and worsening cases of
environmental pollution. Since the steam turbine will be able to generate more power by
utilizing the waste heat recovery generator from the gas turbine, this will result in a
significant amount of output power, potentially increasing the system's efficiency.
Rationale of the Design
Quezon is one of the provinces located in the CALABARZON region of the
Luzon island group. This place covers a land area of 8,706.60 square kilometers or
5410.03 miles. It comprises four legislative districts with a total of 39 municipalities,
further subdivided into 1,209 barangays. According to the 2020 census, its population
was 1,950,459, accounting for 12.04% of the total population of the CALABARZON
region and 3.04% of the Luzon island group total population.
Even though the province has the least population in the region, it has several
establishments and agricultural industries, mainly coconut plantations, which will be the
major beneficiary of the proposed combined cycle power plant. However, Quezon
province experiences unscheduled power outages resulting in loss of revenue in the
industries that mainly use electricity. One example of this unfortunate circumstance
happened last November 2022, where Luzon grid power supply tumbles into a red alert
warning, referring to the condition of severely strained power reserves due to
simultaneous outages of power plants. As such, this causes sporadic brownouts in the
area covered by the Manila Electric Company (MERALCO). Thus, in order to continue
the advancement of civilization and move towards modern technology in Quezon, enough
sources of electricity with no intermittent power outages must be provided. This will help
3
in sustaining and supporting the growing demand for electricity despite the growing
population in the country.
Furthermore, providing additional power plants will be a great solution to address
these problems that arise from the power outages experienced in the Luzon grid. These
plants must be able to supply enough electricity demanded by a specific community. In
line with this, a combined cycle power plant is efficient in generating power, dependable,
economical, and environmentally friendly. The focus of the project’s design is the process
of combined cycle power generation which recovers the temperature from the exhaust gas
and utilizes that heat in power generation.
To begin with, the first turbine is powered by combusted natural gas which is
connected to the generator whereas the energy produced from the combustion of natural
gas is used to convert water into steam. This will power the second turbine that is also
connected to a generator. In general, a combined cycle power plant can operate at full
capacity with high demand and its operation capacity can be reduced to 45% of partial
load. Through this, the power plant can only produce what power is required which
allows the plant to avoid oversupply. A waste heat recovery system is also present in this
infrastructure which may generate additional power. Moreover, numerous studies show
that combined cycle power plants produce around 50% additional electricity from the
same fuel consumption. Therefore, this type of power plant is considered as economical
compared to conventional ones.
4
Target Location of the Plant
Energy solution companies have established a number of projects to provide
communities with an uninterrupted power supply. One solution is to build electrical
facilities such as power plants to meet the rising demand for electricity.
The province of Quezon comprises four legislative districts with a total of 39
municipalities. There are two power plants existing in the locality, the 735 MW Pagbilao
Coal-Fired Power Plant and 420 MW Mauban Coal-Fired Power Plant. Still, the
electricity supplied to the Luzon Grid by three distribution facilities, QUEZELCO I,
QUEZELCO II, and MERALCO, is not enough to sustain the demand of households and
establishments. In line with this, the target location for the proposed combined steam and
gas power plant system will be at Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon, as shown
in the figure below.
Figure 1. Project Location Site
Source: www.googlemaps.com
Figure 1 illustrates the target project location site which should be located in a
large area with the lowest possible distribution costs. As such, the design of the plant will
be situated in a large open lot area of Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon with a
5
total area of 65,054.50 m2 and the location's latitude and longitude of 13.663818 N and
122.196256 E, respectively.
Moreover, the salinity of soil has been evaluated in the province and found out
that the location of General Luna contains non-saline type of soil, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Salinity of Soil
Source: www.bswm.da.gov.ph
According to the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (2020), as illustrated in
the figure above, the municipality of General Luna contains a non-saline type of soil with
a range of 0-2. This can be a good choice for the construction of the power plant because
non-saline soil does not contain salt that reduces the corrosion resistance property of the
infrastructure.
Furthermore, in selecting the site for the plant’s location, the proponents
considered different factors. The generated power output will be transmitted to the
Quezon I Electric Cooperative (QUEZELCO I) which serves as the distribution utility for
third and fourth districts, since the municipality of General Luna belongs to 4th district.
Figure 3 shows the marketing area of the power plant.
6
Figure 3. Marketing Area
Source: www.inquirer.net
As seen in the figure above, the target customers will be the coverage area of
QUEZELCO I, namely Agdangan, Alabat, Atimonan, Buenavista, Calauag, Catanauan,
General Luna, Guinayangan, Gumaca, Lopez, Macalelon, Mulanay, Padre Burgos, Perez,
Pitogo, Plaridel, Quezon, San Andres, San Francisco, San Narciso, Tagkawayan, and
Unisan. In line with this, consumers of the aforementioned towns are classified as
residential such as in households, industrial like the Calauag Ice Plant and A’s Coco
Sugar, commercial, and others such as transportation and street lights.
On the other hand, the natural gas which is one of the raw materials for the
combined cycle power plant will be supplied by the Malampaya Onshore Gas Plant at
Batangas. This will be stored in Energy World International, Ltd. LNG Terminal located
at Pagbilao, Quezon. The said terminal is also the source of fuel for Pagbilao Power Plant
located in the same province. Since the capacity of fuel exceeds the capacity of the plant
in Pagbilao, Quezon, it can be supplied to Meanwhile, the transportation facility also
plays an important role in the operation of the plant, as shown in Figure 4.
7
Figure 4. Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to General Luna Port
Source: www.googlemaps.com
Illustrated in the figure above is the plant's chosen location close to the road and
the seaport of General Luna, to aid the problem of the transportation of essential supplies
and industrial equipment to the plant. Moreover, the availability of labor for the chosen
plant's location is in Quezon Province, with a total population of 1,950,459. This makes it
easier to find skilled craft workers, such as engineers, electricians, and welders, that will
be involved in plant maintenance to ensure the quality of the plant and its operation.
Meanwhile, the availability of energy is a major requirement for the plant. Shown
in the figure below is the Catanauan substation that is located nearly to the proposed
project site.
Figure 5. Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to Catanauan Power Station
8
The proposed combined steam and gas power plant aims to provide 200 MW of
electricity to the municipalities supplied by Quezon I Electric Cooperative (QUEZELCO
I). The target location is 33 kilometers away from QUEZELCO I Catanauan Power
Substation. The power substation should be as close as possible to the location because it
saves on transmission costs. On the other hand, Figure 6 presents the access of the plant
to the QUEZELCO I main facility.
Figure 6. Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to QUEZELCO 1 Main
As seen in the figure above, the plant also has access to the main facility of
QUEZELCO I, which is traveled by land at 33 km at an estimated time of 41 minutes. On
the other hand, the availability of water is an important consideration in choosing the
project location because some processes depend on it. In line with this, the proposed site
is close to Tayabas Bay, which indicates that there is an abundant supply of water near the
area that can be used for the plant's operation, as shown in the figure below.
Figure 7. Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to Tayabas Bay
9
As illustrated in Figure 7, the location at Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna,
Quezon is near the Tayabas Bay, which will serve as the supplier for the water needed in
the steam cycle system of the combined cycle power plant. This will also be utilized
inside the condenser to condensate the steam coming from the turbine through the
condensate pump.
Meanwhile, the climate of Quezon province falls to the tropical type wherein
there is no extreme hotness or coldness. The average and maximum temperature as well
as the pressure and relative humidity for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon are
enumerated as follows: 25°C, 33°C, 101.325 kPa, and 83%. As stated by Petrakopoulou
et al. (2020), higher ambient temperatures can increase the pressure at the steam turbine
outlet which reduces the performance of the power plant. Thus, in the case of the
recirculating cooling system being utilized, the efficiency of power plants will be more
sensitive to changes due to this range of temperature.
In addition, a zoning ordinance was implemented by the government for
comprehensive land use of General Luna, Quezon, obtained from their main site. The
figure above shows the zoning map for the target location, with the lot sizes, type of soil,
and whether the space is for public or private usage. The map of General Luna and its
neighboring towns, including Catanauan in the South, Lopez in the Northeast, and
Macalelon in the Northwest, are shown in the figure below. It is reachable by Asian
Highway 26 (AH26), sometimes referred to as the Pan-Philippine Highway, Radial Road
5 (R-5) and Radial Road 6 (R-6), and is situated about 239 kilometers (km) from Metro
Manila.
10
Figure 8. Zoning Map of General Luna, Quezon
Whereas, Figure 9 illustrates the percentage of land share by Brgy. Bacong Ibaba
in the town.
Figure 9. Land Area for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba
It is seen in the figure above that the barangay has a total area of 650.07 hectares
with a percentage share of 6.43% for the total area of General Luna, Quezon. Meanwhile,
the next figure displays the elevation of General Luna and the category where it falls.
11
Figure 10. Elevation for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba
As noticed in the figure above, warm lowlands may be found on General Luna,
which has an elevation range of 0 to 300 meters above sea level (masl). The coastal
barangays in the western half of the municipality has 0–25 masl elevation zones., while
52.46%, or more than half, of the municipal lands are expected to be between 25 and 100
meters above sea level.
Furthermore, Figure 11 illustrates the slope, which is the degree of inclination for
Brgy. Bacong Ibaba.
Figure 11. Slope for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba
12
From the figure above, the slope for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba was determined. The
majority of the total land area has 3-18% slope classification or gently sloping to
undulating at 3,342.28 hectare which conforms with the standard slope recommended by
the National Land Use Committee (NLUC). It is supported by the Bureau of Soils and
Water Management (BSWM) which affirms that the general slope characteristic of the
Municipality is suitable for agriculture and urban development.
On the other hand, the next figure presents the administrative map of General
Luna, Quezon, with legends for municipal and barangay boundaries as well as the
adjacent municipality and the Tayabas Bay.
Figure 12. Administrative Map of General Luna, Quezon
Load Survey
The load survey is used to determine the load demand of the target consumers
under the Quezon I Electric Cooperative (QUEZELCO I). This includes the number of
consumers in the said vicinity as well as the amount of electricity they consume, which
will be essential for creating the 15-year load projection of the plant.
13
A. Target Consumers
The following figure and tables present the number of consumers for residential,
commercial, industrial, and the others. Figure 13 shows the percentage for each type of
consumer as obtained from the procurement plant of QUEZELCO I.
Figure 13. Classification of QUEZELCO I Consumers
The percentage for each category of consumer, including residential, commercial,
Public Buildings, Street Lights, and BAPA, is shown in this pie graph. Due to the high
number of connections, residential consumers are the highest percentage of consumers,
with 94.6%. The public buildings, street lights, and Barangay Power Association (BAPA)
have a percentage of 2.8 and 2.7 for the commercial enterprises, respectively. This will be
used as a basis for load demand projection.
Whereas, Table 1 displays the number of consumers for the year 2016.
Table 1
Number of Consumer of QUEZELCO I in the year 2016
Consumer Type Number of Consumers
Residential 119,016
Commercial 3,354
14
Table 1 (Continue)
Public Buildings, Street Lights, and BAPA 3,465
Total 125,835
The number of consumers for QUEZELCO I in 2016 is shown in this table as
being obtained from load survey data. The consumers are divided into various categories,
such as residential, commercial, and public buildings, street lights, and BAPA with
119,016, 3,354, and 3,465 consumers, respectively. Hence, in 2016, QUEZELCO I had a
total of 125,835 consumers after adding the number of consumers in each category.
Meanwhile, the number of consumers for the year 2017 is presented below.
Table 2
Residential 128,520
Commercial 3,392
Total 135,418
This table shows the number of consumers for QUEZELCO I in 2017. Compared
to the consumers in the year 2016, there are 128,520 consumers in the residential
category, which is the highest number of consumers. Also, there were 3,392 consumers in
the commercial, and 3,506 in the last type. After summing the number of consumers in
each category, QUEZELCO I had a total of 135,418.
15
On the other hand, the number of consumers for the year is illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3
Residential 133,155
Commercial 3,486
Total 140,286
This table describes the number of QUEZELCO I consumers in 2018. There are
133,155 consumers in the residential, 3,486 in the commercial category, and 3,645 for
public buildings and others. By adding the number of consumers in each category, this
yields a total of 140,286 consumers. The total number of QUEZELCO 1 consumers in
2018 is higher than it was in 2016 and 2017.
Whereas, the table below illustrates the number of consumers for the year 2019.
Table 4
Residential 135,080
Commercial 3,624
Total 142,409
16
The number of QUEZELCO I consumers in 2019 is shown in this table. The
residential category has 135,080 consumers, followed by the other type with 3,705, and
the commercial with 3,624, which has the least number of consumers. There are 142,409
consumers in total, which is higher than in past years.
Meanwhile, the number of consumers for the year 2020 is tabulated as provided
below.
Table 5
Residential 137,857
Commercial 3,652
Total 145,314
In this table, the number of QUEZELCO I consumers in 2020 is discussed. In
comparison to the other categories, the residential category has the most consumers with
137,857, whereas there are 3,805 public buildings, street lights, and BAPA, and the
commercial category has 3,652 consumers. This results in a total of 145,314 consumers.
On the other hand, the total number of consumers from QUEZELCO I for the
year 2021 is presented in Table 6.
Table 6
17
Table 6 (Continue)
Residential 145,021
Commercial 3,889
Total 152,824
The number of QUEZELCO I consumers in 2021 is included in this table. With
145,021 consumers, the residential category has the most value when compared to the
rest. Meanwhile, The number of consumers for the other types are as follows: 3,889, and
3,914. In comparison to years 2016-2020, the number of consumers in 2021 is the highest
with 152,824.
For the previous year 2022, the number of consumers is presented below.
Table 7
Residential 151,002
Commercial 4,048
Total 159,399
This table shows the number of consumers for QUEZELCO I in 2022. The
residential category contains 151,002 consumers, the public buildings and street lights
with 4,349, and the commercial with 4,048 consumers. When the total customers for each
18
group are added together, there are 159,399 consumers. It is seen that the number of
QUEZELCO I consumers is the highest compared to previous years as a result of the
increasing energy demand every year.
B. Load Demand
The facility's overall power requirements are referred to as load demand. Upon
conducting a load survey to the target consumers under the QUEZELCO 1 distributor,
figures are presented below. These show the results from 2020 to 2021 on a daily and
yearly basis. Average load is defined as the average of the loads that occur in the power
plant system on an hourly basis from midnight to the next day. Presented in Table 8 are
the values for the average load ( in kW) for each year, namely: 2020, 2021, and 2022.
Table 8
Daily Average Load
2020 2021 2022
1 23035.10041 24244.44318 25434.84535
2 22007.64075 23163.04189 24300.34724
3 21148.9789 22259.30029 23352.23193
4 20461.32025 21535.53957 22592.93456
5 20304.09359 21370.0585 22419.32838
6 21063.03532 22168.84467 23257.33494
7 20452.62542 21526.38826 22583.33392
8 20349.5665 21417.91874 22469.53855
9 22360.69907 23534.63577 24690.18639
10 24159.99053 25428.39003 26676.92398
11 26351.6799 27735.14309 29096.93862
19
Table 8
Daily Average Load (Continuation)
12 26476.01335 27866.00405 29234.22485
13 25886.56932 27245.61421 28583.37386
14 26266.72823 27645.73146 29003.13687
15 26156.84523 27530.0796 28881.80651
16 25360.70071 26692.13749 28002.72144
17 24655.03469 25949.42401 27223.54073
18 26032.95941 27399.68978 28745.01455
19 30538.1916 32141.44666 33719.59169
20 31371.34148 33018.33691 34639.53725
21 30962.93445 32588.4885 34188.58329
22 29188.72522 30721.1333 32229.54094
23 26581.23888 27976.75392 29350.41254
24 24519.09458 25806.34705 27073.43869
As seen in the table above, the values from years 2020-2022 were provided from
the hourly basis of the load survey gathered from QUEZELCO I. This shows that the load
varies every hour since none of the values are the same with one another. However, in the
year 2020, the peak load occurs during eight in the evening, similar for the years 2021
and 2022.
In line with this, Figure 14 shows the daily average load curve of QUEZELCO I
from 2020-2022. The x-axis shows the time in hours whereas the load in kilowatts is
represented at the x-axis.
20
Figure 14. Daily Average Load from 2020-2022
It is seen in the figure above that the difference in trend for the past three years,
namely 2020, 2021, and 2022, increased. This is due to the continuous growth of the
population, which increases the energy consumption in the said vicinity.
Peak load refers to the maximum consumption of electricity. In this case, the load
(in KW) is on an hourly basis, as shown in table 9.
Table 9
Daily Peak Load
2020 2021 2022
1 29,006 31,490 32,134
2 26,969 29,550 34,859
3 25,561 29,139 32,978
4 26,086 28,659 32,178
5 25,634 28,005 33,848
6 26,121 30,530 37,047
7 25,882 29,994 32,114
8 25,255 30,073 35,693
21
Table 9
Daily Peak Load (Continuation)
9 24,472 28,675 33,195
10 26,835 29,686 33,654
11 31,239 33,309 36,071
12 30,520 34,231 35,475
13 29,618 30,141 32,188
14 27,885 30,454 34,551
15 25,583 30,607 34,978
16 23,798 30,041 33,107
17 27,753 30,331 31,228
18 30,394 31,867 33,331
19 34,601 37,425 35,896
20 34,113 35,813 38,033
21 33,571 33,154 34,966
22 31,574 33,854 35,168
23 29,046 31,347 33,939
24 33,277 34,471 39,187
From the table above, it is observed that the peak or maximum load in each hour
increases and decreases due to its variation. Factors affecting these load variations are the
energy utilized by each consumer type in a particular time and the number of equipment
used by residential, commercial, as well as the public buildings and street lights.
As such, displayed in Figure 15 is the daily peak load curve for the past three
years.
22
Figure 15. Daily Peak Load from 2020-2022
Presented in the figure above is the daily peak load for years 2020, 2021, and
2022. It is observed that the loads vary with respect to time, where at some point, it
increases and consequently decreases. Still, the year 2020 has the lowest load while the
year 2022 has the highest value.
On the other hand, Figure 16 illustrates the annual peak load from 2020 to 2021.
Figure 16. Yearly Peak Load for 2020-2022
Shown in the figure above are the trendlines for the peak load on a yearly basis. It
is noticed the values still vary from each other, however, the curve for the year 2022 is
the highest of all. Several factors affected it, such as population growth and increase in
energy utilization.
23
C. Load Demand Projection
Several provinces experience power outages as a consequence of increasing load
demand and a limited supply of energy sources. Given the technological developments
we are currently experiencing, it is not impossible that communities, like General Luna in
Quezon, could eventually industrialize and have more establishments. Thus, a power
plant is necessary in the area to supply their electricity demands. Whereas, when building
a power plant, the capacity of the plant that will deliver during the following years must
be determined by taking into account the projected load of the demand. In view of this,
the forecasted values of the demand load, which are derived using the linear technique
and rise by 6.85% annually from the QUEZELCO I procurement plan, are tabulated
below.
Table 10
Projected Load Demand
Year Average Load (MW) Peak Demand Load (MW)
2020 34978.03133 37.17
2021 36726.93289 41.25
2022 38563.27954 40.01
2023 40491.44351 42.75
2024 42516.01569 45.68
2025 44641.81647 48.81
2026 46873.9073 52.16
2027 49217.60266 55.73
2028 51678.48279 59.55
2029 54262.40693 63.63
24
Table 10
Projected Load Demand (Continuation)
2030 56975.52728 67.98
2031 59824.30365 72.64
2032 62815.51883 77.62
2033 65956.29477 82.93
2034 69254.10951 88.61
2035 72716.81498 94.68
2036 76352.65573 101.17
2037 80170.28852 108.10
2038 84178.80294 115.51
Table 10 shows the projected load until the year 2038. From the actual load
demand of 40.01 MW during the year 2022, the load projection for the next 15 years is
expected to be at the highest value of 115.51 MW. These values will be utilized to get the
curve that will determine the accuracy of the said load demand projection.
Hence, based on the values tabulated above, a curve for the projected value below
is provided as shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17. Projected Demand Load Curve
25
The proposed power plant system's predicted demand load curve from 2020 to
2038 is depicted in the figure above. This demonstrates how the demand for power has
been rising over the duration of the year. The load consists of the total sales made by all
residential and commercial buildings, as well as by all buildings, street lighting, and the
Barangay Power Association (BAPA). Peak demand, with a peak value of 115.51 MW,
happens in 2038. The year 2020 saw the lowest peak demand, with a value of 37.17 MW.
On average, annual increases in electricity usage have been 6.85%.
D. Power Plant Capacity
A predicted load estimate of 115.51 MW is for the next fifteen years. According
to the QUEZELCO I procurement plan, the plant will have a 19% reserve capacity and
15% system losses. As such, the power plant's capacity will be determined as stated
below.
The formula for the plant capacity is the sum of the three factors, which are the
peak demand, system losses, and the reserve capacity.
Plant Capacity = Peak Demand + System Losses + Reserve Capacity
From the forecasted value of the load demand shown in Table 8, the year 2038 has
the highest value of 115.51 MW. Hence, this will be the load demand to be considered.
Peak Demand = 115.51 MW
System losses are the amount of power output that is lost or dissipated due to heat
and other reasons. The cost of such a loss is compensated by the number of customer
connections impacted and supplied by a specific power plant. In order to get a low cost of
electricity bill, a smaller percentage of system loss, in this example 15% or 0.15, is
necessary.
26
System Losses = Peak Demand x %System Losses
System Losses = (115.51 MW) (0.15)
System Losses = 17.326 MW
In contrast, the electric grid uses reserve capacity as a backup energy source in the
event of an unforeseen event, such as when a power plant's capacity is exceeded. It is
recommended for power plant systems to have the required amount of reserve capacity in
order to supply for the future or in case of an emergency. Also, this might help to balance
or lower the cost of producing reserve capacity.
Reserve Capacity = Peak Demand x %Reserve Capacity
Reserve Capacity = (115.51 MW) (0.19)
Reserve Capacity = 21.946 MW
Substituting all the necessary values to compute the plant capacity:
Plant Capacity = Peak Demand + System Losses + Reserve Capacity
Plant Capacity = 115.51 MW +17.326 MW + 21.946 MW
Plant Capacity =154.78 MW ≈ 155 MW
Therefore, with a peak load of 115.51 MW and assumed factors of 15% and 19%
for system losses and reserve capacity, respectively, the required capacity for the
proposed power plant system yielded approximately 155 MW.
Capitalization
In constructing a power plant, investments on capital are necessary since the
budget allocated for a plant is much higher than the ordinary establishments. The costs of
electricity in a combined steam and gas power plant highly vary depending on factors
such as engineering procurement and construction costs, financing costs, expenses on
27
gas consumption, and environmental regulations. Also, financing is said to be one of the
most important aspects of starting a business. As such, since all of the costs associated
with continuous operation require large sums of money, capital investment is required as
the first step to launch one’s business.
Furthermore, as the schedule progresses, financial management will be required
for purchasing supplies, hiring specialists, marketing, and testing. Given that the target
customers are residential, industrial, and commercial, capital is expected to come from
the government and bank loans, as well as the plant's operator/owner, or investors. In line
with this, a pie chart below shows the percentage share of the organizations that will fund
the proposed combined steam and gas power plant.
Figure 18. Power Plant Capitalization Shares
The figure above shows the various organizations' contributions to the proposed
power plant's funding. Seventy-eight percent of the finance will come from the plant's
owner, eleven percent from investors, eight percent from bank loans and the remaining
three percent from the government.
28
Ownership
Discussed in this section are the proponents' methods for authorizing the
construction and operation of the power plant. The concept for the proposed plan to build
the power plant came from a set of laws by the government known as the Republic Act
7718. This outlines the government's position on the financing, development, and
operation of the infrastructure project. In line with this, the capstone project will follow
the Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) scheme, involving some project's financiers to run
the power plant facility for a specified time. As a result, the infrastructure will be given
to the government agency after the contract's expiration, which cannot exceed fifty years.
In line with this, the combined cycle power plant proposed in this study will be
owned by the public and private sectors. The project will transfer to the applicable
government organization after the investment as well as the operating and maintenance
costs was recovered. This high cost of capital for a power plant construction and
operation means that a public utility franchise is needed. Meanwhile, the Philippine
Energy Sector estimated that the country’s total power has increased by 3.2% from the
contribution of renewable energy which has the potential to achieve environmental
sustainability not just locally but also internationally. (DOE, 2016) However, as the
country aims to provide a solution for the increasing demand, funds are still not enough
in producing one. As such, opportunities on investing in power plant construction in the
country arise.
In line with this, the project's financier must be Filipino, or the corporation must
be legally registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and have at least
sixty percent ownership by Filipinos in order for public utilities to support the project.
29
This project opens an invitation to potential investors to participate in the development of
the proposed project. Three subsidiary companies from the oldest and largest
conglomerates in the Philippines will be the major shareholder of the proposed power
plant. They are all known for their interests in power generation, power distribution,
infrastructure, manufacturing, and property development. The project's proponents are
assured that these three companies, which are power generation companies in the
Philippines, can support funding the proposed project. However, the investor will first
participate in open competitive bidding processes in accordance with the Government
Procurement Reform Act in order to establish the necessary guidelines and rules for the
modernization, and regulation of the Philippine government's contracts. Hence, the
proponents will accept the investor that they consider will be most helpful to the
proposed project at a pre-bid conference where technical requirements will be explained.
Organizational Structure
The proposed 155 MW combined steam and gas cycle power plant located at
Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon will achieve its goal through the works of
employees. A good and clear description of the worker’s responsibilities and line of work
is the key for the success of the company. As such, shown in Figure 19 is the
organizational structure of the plant.
30
Figure 19. Organizational Chart of Combined Steam and Gas Power Plant
31
The organizational chart presented above displays the company’s internal
structure of workers. To begin with, the company will be a corporation where the
shareholders are designated to be the board of directors. Furthermore, to ensure the
quality of the board, nomination and remuneration committee is also included. This
committee is composed of the boards themselves which assesses each performance. The
plant manager is chosen by the board where the whole processes and happenings in the
company is within his/her sight. Meanwhile, the company secretary and the assistant
plant manager will help the plant manager to achieve the plant’s full potential.
The company secretary will be in charge of the administration of staff such as the
hiring of the employees that are needed in the plant. Also, the support and emergency
personnel are also under the supervision of the HR Department which is monitored by the
company secretary. This includes the canteen staff, fire fighters, security guards and the
cleaning staff. The target of this department under the company’s overall secretary is to
ensure the safety and comfortability of the workers. This department is included because
the proponents of this proposed power plant believe that the best outcome of work comes
from the best workers and one factor that can affect the performance of the workers is the
working environment itself.
However, the assistant plant manager is responsible for the processes of the power
plant. Included in the radar of the assistant plant manager are four departments namely,
chief of operations, chief of technical officers and risk management committee. Under the
chief of operations are the workers that will check each component of the power plant.
Since the proposed power plant will run on a combined cycle of gas and steam, the gas
turbine engineer and the steam turbine engineer are included together with the gas turbine
32
mechanics and steam turbine mechanics that will help with the monitoring of the plant,
respectively. Also, the on-going projects would be under this department with the help of
the technicians and construction workers. To be more specific, the chief of operations
will handle four departments, line supervisor, operation manager, system operations and
the project supervisor. The chief technical officer will be in charge of the plant
management technician. Lastly is the risk management committee which includes the
environmental engineers, safety officers, environment officers and the pollution control
officers.
33
CHAPTER II
TECHNICAL DESIGN
This chapter discusses the technical design of the proposed combined steam and
gas power plant system, that covers the working principle and components of a combined
power plant, three system design options, and the detailed calculations for each that
support the technical specifications of the equipment used in the processes. It also
includes the plant layout, presenting the components and their connection as a whole
system.
Theoretical Consideration
In the field of energy engineering, one of the most crucial topics is the
development of power generation systems. The most effective use of energy and ways to
manage energy usage are crucial given the high cost of energy and the diminishing
supply of fossil fuels. Through continuous study, it is proven that combined cycle power
plants have higher efficiency compared to steam power plants and gas turbine cycle
power plants alone.
Combined Cycle Power Plant
In order to transfer the energy in a fuel into electric power, mechanical work must
first be created. This mechanical work is then converted into electric power by a
generator in a "simple cycle," which results in efficiency losses. The overall efficiency of
this conversion normally ranges between 30 and 40%, depending on the type of fuel and
thermodynamic process. This implies that a sizable portion of the fuel's latent energy is
lost as waste. The heated exhaust fumes from the combustion process contain thermal
energy made up in large part of this squandered energy.
34
However, the residual thermal energy in hot exhaust gases can be recovered and
used by a number of processes to boost the overall effectiveness of electric power plants.
This leads the way to combined cycle power plants. A combined cycle gas turbine
(CCGT) plant uses gas turbines and is the most popular form of combined cycle power
plant. The output of the steam turbine makes up around half of the output of the CCGT
plant since gas turbines are inefficient in simple cycle operation. CCGT power plants can
be set up in a variety of ways, but normally each GT has a separate HRSG, and several
HRSGs deliver steam to one or more steam turbines.
Working Principle of a Combined Cycle Power Plant
A combined-cycle power plant is an electrical power plant that combines a gas
turbine and a steam turbine to achieve higher efficiency than it can independently.
Combined Rankine Cycle and Brayton Cycle can generate up to 50% more energy from
the same fuel than a conventional simple cycle plant. To further discuss, the gas turbine
powers an electrical generator through the compression of air, mixing it with a highly
heated fuel in a combustion chamber at extremely high temperature, the hot air and fuel
mixture coming from the combustion chamber passing through the turbine blades making
them to rotate quickly, and the fast rotation of the turbine blades that powers the drive
shaft which is connected to a generator, producing electricity.
In line with this, the exhaust gases from the gas turbine of the Brayton Cycle are
supplied to the heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), which recovers heat from the
exhaust gases of the gas turbine that feeds to the steam turbine of the Rankine Cycle,
which is also connected to a generator to produce more energy. (General Electric, 2022)
Therefore, a combined cycle power system is established. Due to multiple cycles present
35
in a combined cycle power plant, there is an increase in pressure levels and reheat circuits
giving a better cycle efficiency than a simple cycle plant. (Ipieca, 2022)
Components of a Combined Cycle Power Plant
A combined cycle will never be set up without the components that are connected
with one another. In line with this, listed below are the components used in designing a
combined steam and gas cycle power plant.
1. Gas Turbine
A gas turbine is a type of turbine that produces electricity or provides kinetic
energy by using compressed gas to spin it. The pressurized gas in all contemporary gas
turbines is produced by burning a fuel such as natural gas. This fuel's heat causes the air
that is being used in the turbine to expand, producing useful energy. In line with this, a
single-shaft type of gas turbine will be utilized in this design.
Figure 20. Gas Turbine

Source: energyeducation.ca
2. Axial Compressor
A compressor draws in air from outside of the turbine and increases its pressure.
The axial kind of air compressor will be used in the proposed design since it offers a
larger flow rate and a higher pressure ratio, both of which lead to higher fuel efficiency.
Hence, this power plant will use an axial compressor.
36
Figure 21. Air Compressor
Source: gas-turbines.weebly.com
3. Combustion Chamber
The energy that powers the entire system is added in a gas turbine's combustion
chamber. The air-fuel mixture is compressed by the piston and ignited when it comes into
contact with the spark plug, pushing the mixture out of the combustion chamber as
energy.
Figure 22. Combustion Chamber

Source: siemens-energy.com
4. Steam Turbine
A mechanical device known as a steam turbine converts pressurized steam's
thermal energy into mechanical work. Steam is used to power a steam turbine. The
majority of the energy contained in the hot, gaseous steam is released as it expands and
cools as it passes by the rotating blades of the turbine. The blades are constantly being
spun by this steam. Hence, the blades largely transform the potential energy of the steam
into kinetic energy. The generator is then powered by the turbine to create electricity.
37
Figure 23. Steam Turbine
Source: researchgate.net
5. HRSG (Heat Recovery Steam Generator)
An HRSG is a part of a power generation unit, it uses the heat from the turbine
exhaust gases to turn liquid water into steam so that it can be used in the same power
cycle. HRSG is essentially a very efficient heat exchanger.
Figure 24. Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Source: entechproducts.com
6. Generator
A generator uses the provided mechanical energy and forces the flow of present
electric charges inside the wire of its windings. A generator transforms the mechanical
energy from an external source into electrical energy, which is then sufficient to produce
electricity. It operates according to Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction.
38
Figure 25. Generator
Source: azom.com
7. Feed Water Pump
Feed water pumps (FWP) pump the feed water from the deaerator through the HP
heaters to the heat recovery steam generator. The major characteristic of the FWP is their
high differential head. In all sizes of gas-fired combined-cycle power plants, the FWP are
horizontal ring section type; occasionally, they could also be barrel or axially split type
(Sulzer, 2020).
Figure 26. Feed Water Pump

Source: carverpump.com
8. Condensate Pump
A condensate pump is a centrifugal pump, which is named after the type of fluid
handled. Using a technical vacuum, it is employed in condensers to pump out the
condensed steam as water condensate. In a closed circuit, the condensate pump pumps
39
the condensate directly into the boiler feed pump via a low-pressure feed heater. In an
open circuit, the condensate pump carries the condensate into a tank.
Figure 27. Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Source: turbomachinerymag.com
9. Open Feedwater Heater
An open feedwater heater essentially functions as a mixing chamber where
feedwater exiting the pump and steam produced from the turbine are combined. The
combination should ideally exit the heater at heater pressure as a saturated liquid.
Figure 28. Open Feedwater Heater

Source: tubos.in
10. Condenser
A steam condenser is a mechanical tool used to condense turbine exhaust steam
into water. Cooling water from the cooling tower circulates inside it while it carries out
this procedure. In order to increase efficiency, the pressure within a steam condenser is
40
kept below the atmospheric pressure. It is frequently utilized to reduce the backpressure
of the turbine end exhaust.
Figure 29. Condenser

Source: jetflowtechnologies.com
Design Objectives
Due to technical improvements that offer better efficiency in producing energy
but lower resource consumption, a combined cycle type of power plant system has been
used. In line with this, the design objectives and requirements for the proposed combined
steam and gas turbine power plant system are covered in this section.
The main objective of this project is to design a 155 MW combined steam and gas
power plant system to be connected with Quezon I Electric Cooperative (QUEZELCO I)
and placed at Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon. Specifically, this study aims
to:
1. Establish three design options for the proposed combined steam and gas cycle
power plant considering the following aspects:
1.1 Load demand of the target customers
1.2 Working principle of a combined steam and gas cycle power plant
1.3 Equipment specifications and selection for each design option
41
1.3 Environmental and economical aspects of the plant design
2. Present the design calculations together with the schematic and process flow
diagram as well as the plant layout using AutoCAD and SketchUp software
applications.
3. Evaluate the performance of the three design options based on the plant capacity,
work output, and overall cycle efficiency.
4. Provide an environmental analysis for the design options supported by existing
codes and standards.
5. Perform an economic analysis for the three design options considering the
economic indicators such as capital cost, operation expenses, maintenance
expenditure, net present value, payback period, and rate of return as well as the
sensitivity analysis.
6. Select the optimum design from the technical, environmental and economical
aspects of the proposed combined cycle power plant.
7. Present a detailed project execution plan of the selected design for the proposed
combined steam and gas cycle power plant.
Scope of the Design
Due to increasing consumer demand and decreasing amount of conventional
resources, the government and experts still find a way to sustain the needs without having
major adverse effect to the resources.With the help of technological advancements,
several studies have shown findings that combined cycle power plants, particularly the
steam and gas cycles, can produce a better efficiency compared to the simple plant
systems. Supported by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ (ASME)
42
handbook for cogeneration and combined cycle power plants (2002), the thermal
efficiencies of combined cycle power plants can reach up to 60% whereas 30-40% for the
individual cycles.
Moreover, this combined system introduces the utilization of alternative
resources, such as solar, biomass, and steam. Steam, one of the most well-liked and
efficient forms of energy, is mostly applied to produce electricity and serve as a heating
or cooling system. It benefits the environment by emitting less or no greenhouse gasses
and lowering the consumption of traditional fuels like natural gas, which increases the
possibility of establishing a more efficient and cleaner power system. In line with this, a
combined steam and gas cycle power plant has been proposed, aiming to address the
aforementioned concerns. Furthermore, three design alternatives for the combined cycle
power plant have been proposed, each with their method of increasing efficiency. These
include the simple combined cycle, single-stage reheat for steam cycle, and single-stage
reheat for both steam and gas cycles. Cycle and T-s diagrams will be provided through
AutoCAD whereas calculations will be performed with the help of stoichiometric
analysis for the gas cycle and the Steam Table for the steam cycle. The resulting
parameters will be essential in selecting the appropriate equipment from catalogs. Lastly,
a plant layout will be included, to be created using the Sketchup software application.
Design Data
This section presents the information and parameters required for the
computations, as obtained from the standards. These were employed in order to perform
the mass and energy balances in both Brayton and Rankine Cycles to establish a feasible
design.
43
A. Topping Cycle (Brayton Cycle)
The gas cycle (Brayton Cycle) was utilized as the topping cycle for this
proposed combined steam and gas power plant. Components in this cycle are as
follows: air compressor, combustion chamber, gas turbines, where high- and
low-pressure will be used for the last design alternative with single-stage reheat
gas turbines, a reheater, and a generator. Listed below are the data to be
considered for analyzing the topping cycle in all the three design options.
1. Properties of Natural Gas
One factor to be determined in a gas cycle is the fuel to be utilized, in this
case, the natural gas. Tabulated below are the pressure and temperature of the
natural gas to be stored at Pagbilao Grande Island LNG Terminal. This will serve
as the basis for the stoichiometric analysis of the gas composition.
Table 11
Properties of Natural Gas
Temperature, K Pressure, kPa
288.15 101.325
As seen in Table 11, the temperature of the natural gas is 288.15 K or
15°C, whereas the pressure accounts for the atmospheric conditions, with a value
of 101.325 kPa. Whereas, included in the article is the elemental analysis of
natural gas supplied by Energy World Corporation Ltd. and stored in Pagbilao
Grande Island LNG Terminal as permitted by Department of Energy (2015),
which is tabulated below.
44
Table 12
Natural Gas Composition
Composition Chemical Formula Molar Fraction %
Methane CH4 95.05
Ethane C2H6 0.13
Propane C3H8 0.01
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.25
Nitrogen N2 4.52
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.04
Total 100
Shown in Table 2 are the compositions of natural gas and their
corresponding molar percentages. For the methane, ethane, propane, carbon
dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide, their molar ratios in percent are as
follows: 95.05, 0.13, 0.01, 0.25, 4.52, and 0.04. This sums to a total of 100
percent.
2. Climatic Conditions
Displayed in Table 3 are the ambient conditions of the target location
which takes the first step in analyzing the cycle, as it will be the basis for the inlet
conditions of the compressor. The data were obtained from the site of
Accuweather for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon.
45
Table 13
Climatic Conditions
Average Maximum Pressure (kPa) Relative

Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Humidity (%)
25 33 101.325 83
Source: Accuweather.com
From Table 3, the information on the average and maximum temperature
as well as the pressure and relative humidity were given for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba,
General Luna, Quezon. The values are enumerated as follows: 25°C, 33°C,
101.325 kPa, and 83% of relative humidity.
3. Air Compressor Conditions
The inlet temperature for the air compressor will be the average
temperature of the target location, which happens to be 25°C whereas the inlet
pressure will be based on the atmospheric condition with a value of 101.325 kPa.
Since an ideal setup will not be possible to attain in reality, an efficiency for air
compressor will be considered. As stated by Parks (2021), the isentropic
efficiency ranges from 50% to 85%, hence, the maximum will be utilized in this
design.
Moreover, for the compression ratio, it is indicated in the Handbook for
Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants by Boyce (2002) that the
pressure ratio for gas cycles ranges from 8:1 to 30:1. In this case, the design
utilizes a compression ratio of 12 for the design option 1 and 15 for the second
and third design options. A summary of the parameters for the air compressor is
presented in Table 4.
46
Table 14
Data for Air Compressor
Parameter Symbol Value Unit
Inlet Temperature T1 298 K
Inlet Pressure P1 101.325 kPa
Efficiency ηc 85 %
Design Option 1
Compression Ratio rp 12 -
Design Options 2 and 3
Compression Ratio rp 15 -
Shown in the table above are the parameters necessary for the air
compressor, namely: inlet temperature, inlet pressure, efficiency, and compression
ratio. This will be used in solving for the outlet temperature of the air compressor
as an inlet for the next equipment.
4. Gas Turbine Conditions
As discussed in the Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle
Power Plants by Boyce (2002), the inlet temperature for large gas turbines can
reach up to 1644 K (1371°C). In this case, the gas turbines in design options 1 and
2 will utilize 1300 K (1027°C), while 1644 K (1371°C) on the last alternative. On
the other hand, due to some losses, the ideal setup of being a hundred percent
efficient will be hardly possible to happen. In this case, an efficiency for gas
turbines will be used. According to Linquip Team (2021), as an application for
industrial and utility-sized units, the gas turbine efficiency of capacities over 1000
47
kW or 1 MW is 80 to above 90%. However, for the reheat stage in the last design
option, the second gas turbine will still be using the same temperature as the first
turbine. To sum up, Table 5 presents the design data for gas turbines.
Table 15
Data for Gas Turbine
Design Options 1 and 2
Efficiency ηc 85 %
Design Option 3: High and Low Pressure Gas Turbines
Efficiency ηc 85 %
As seen in the table above, the inlet temperatures and efficiencies for gas
turbines to be employed in the three design alternatives were provided. They have
the same values of 1300 K as inlet temperature and 85% as the gas turbine
efficiency.
5. Gas Cycle Generator Efficiency
The generator is connected to the gas turbine, which converts the
mechanical into useful energy, the electricity. The ratio of electrical output to its
input is known as the generator efficiency. It is seen from a catalog of Siemens
manufacturers that generators used have efficiencies that can reach up to 98.5%.
Hence, the design will utilize a generator efficiency of 98.5%.
48
B. Bottoming Cycle (Rankine Cycle)
On the other hand, the steam (Rankine Cycle) was utilized as the
bottoming cycle of the proposed combined steam and gas power plant. The
components included in Rankine cycle are as follows: steam turbine, condenser,
condensate pump, open feedwater heater, feed pump, and a generator. Listed
below are the data to be considered for analyzing the topping cycle in all the three
design options, where the first design option is simple, single-stage reheat for the
second alternative, and reheat-regeneration stage for the last.
1. Steam Turbine Conditions
The steam turbine in the first design option will use the inlet temperature
and pressure as obtained from the Siemens manufacturers, which are 400°C and 3
MPa, respectively. Whereas, for the reheating stage in design alternatives 2 and 3,
as indicated by the Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power
Plants by Boyce (2002), the inlet temperature of a steam turbine reaches up to
1315°C. It was supported by the Siemens manufacturers, wherein the inlet
pressures and temperature are 16.5 MPa and 585°C. Hence, the aforementioned
parameters will be used.
Moreover, the reheating stages will employ the “perfect reheating method”
wherein the temperature of the high pressure turbine is what will also be used for
the low pressure steam turbine. Lastly, an ideal setup with a hundred percent
efficiency will not be possible in the real world, thus, an efficiency for the actual
work will be used. From the handbook entitled “Catalog of CHP Technologies”
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017), the efficiency of a
49
steam turbine ranges from 65% for small units with 1000 kW to 90% for large
turbines. With this, a 90% efficiency will be utilized for the design. A summary of
the initial parameters is tabulated below.
Table 16
Data for Steam Turbine
Design Option 1
Inlet Temperature T6 400 °C
Inlet Pressure P6 3 MPa
Efficiency ηt 90 %
Design Options 2 and 3: High Pressure Steam Turbines
Inlet Pressure P6 16.5 MPa
Efficiency ηt 90 %
Design Options 2 and 3: Low Pressure Steam Turbines
Efficiency ηt 90 %
Shown in Table 6 are the specific data for steam turbines, which vary for
the three design options. It shows the inlet temperature which is 400°C and 585°C
for design options 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Whereas, the pressures for the three
design options are 3 MPa for simple turbine, 16.5 MPa for both high pressure
50
turbine and low pressure turbine. However, the efficiency of 90% remains the
same for all the design alternatives.
2. Condenser Conditions
Back pressure reduces the power produced, wherein condensers may
decrease the back pressure that increases the work output. Hence, the use of
condensers in a steam cycle increases the plant’s efficiency. From the Handbook
for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants by Boyce (2002), the
condenser equipment is maintained with a pressure that ranges from 3.3 to 13
kPa. In this case, the maximum value, which is 13 kPa, will be utilized in the
design.
Table 17
Data for Condenser
Design Option 1
Inlet Pressure P7 13 kPa
Design Option 2
Design Option 3
From the table above, the inlet pressure of the condenser that will be used
in all the three design options will be 13 kPa, with different configurations, such
as P7, P9, and P12.
51
3. Condensate Pump Conditions
The condensate pump is used to pump water through the feedwater heater.
In this design, since the process is isobaric, the outlet pressure of the steam
turbine is the same with its inlet which is equal to the inlet of the condensate
pump too. Therefore, the inlet pressure of the condenser is 13 kPa. On the other
hand, from Evans (2012), the range of efficiencies for pumps in medium or large
sizes is between 75 and 93 percent, where the design will use the average
efficiency of 84%.
Table 18
Data for Condensate Pump
Inlet Pressure P 13 kPa
Efficiency ηp 84 %
Shown in the table above are the initial parameters for the condensate
pump which are the inlet pressure and efficiency. In line with this, the values are
13 kPa and 84%, respectively, which will be applied to the three design options.
4. Feed Pump Conditions
The feed pump is the bridge between the open feedwater heater and the
HRSG. The inlet pressure of a feed pump is the same with the inlet pressure at the
open feedwater heater, since they both lie on a single pressure line. Hence, the
value for the inlet pressure of a feed pump at the last design alternative will be
0.1301 MPa. On the other hand, similar to the condensate pump, the range of
52
efficiencies for pumps in medium or large sizes is between 75 and 93 percent,
where the design will use the average efficiency of 84%. (Evans, 2012)
Table 19
Data for Feed Pump
Efficiency ηp 84 %
Table 19 illustrates the data for the feed pump wherein the inlet pressure is
0,1301 MPa and has an 84% efficiency. This will be applied on design option 3
with a reheat-regenerative type of steam cycle.
5. Steam Cycle Generator Efficiency
The generator is connected to the steam turbine, which converts the
mechanical into useful energy, the electricity. The ratio of electrical output to its
input is known as the generator efficiency. It is seen from a catalog of Siemens
manufacturers that generators used have efficiencies that can reach up to 98.5%.
Hence, the design will utilize a generator efficiency of 98.5%.
Design Options Calculations
This part presents the calculations performed for each of the design options for
the proposed 155 MW combined steam and gas power plant system. From the Handbook
for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants by Boyce (2002), the usual division
of energy output generated is 40% for the steam turbine while the gas turbine generates
about 60%.
53
Combustion Stoichiometry of Natural Gas
The first step in computing for the gas cycle is the stoichiometric analysis of its
fuel, in this case, the natural gas. Stoichiometry takes into account a substance's chemical
composition (in terms of reactants) to calculate the amount of expected byproducts.
The different molar fractions for each component of natural gas, primarily
methane, ethane, propane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen sulfide, are displayed
in Table 2. Hence, the values are listed as follows: 95.05%, 0.13%, 0.01%, 0.25%, 4.52%,
and 0.04%, with a total of 100%.
Combustion Equation
Excess air is the portion of the total amount of air given that is higher than what is
necessary for stoichiometric or complete combustion. To reach optimal efficiency with
natural gas, approximately 5–10% more air is needed. 7.5%, the midpoint of the range,
shall be taken into account in this proposal.
0.9505 CH4 + 0.0013 C2H6 + 0.0001 C3H8 + 0.0452 N2 + 0.0025 CO2 + 0.0004 H2S
+ 1.075 (xO2 + yN2) → aCO2 + bH2O +cSO2 + (1.075) dN2
Balancing the equation:
C : 0.9505 + 0.0013(2) +0.0001(3) + 0.0025 = a ; a = 0.9559
H : 0.9505(4) + 0.0013(6) + 0.0001(8) + 0.0004(2) = b(2) ; b = 1.9057
S : 0.0004 = c ; c = 0.0004
O : 0.0025(2) + (1.075)(x)(2) = a(2) + b + c(2) ; x = 1.7736
y = 3.76x = 3.76(1.7736) ; y = 6.6688
54
N : 0.0452(2) + (1.075)(y)(2) = (1.075)(d)(2) ; d = 6.7108
Rewriting the combustion equation:
0.9505 CH4 + 0.0013 C2H6 + 0.0001 C3H8 + 0.0452 N2 + 0.0025 CO2 + 0.0004
H2S + 1.075(1.7736 O2 + 6.6688 N2) → 0.9559 CO2 + 1.9057 H2O + 0.0004 SO2 +
(1.075) 6.7108 N2
Simplifying the equation:
0.9505 CH4 + 0.0013 C2H6 + 0.0001 C3H8 + 0.0452 N2 + 0.0025 CO2 + 0.0004
H2S + (1.90662 O2 + 7.16896 N2) → 0.9559 CO2 + 1.9057 H2O + 0.0004 SO2 +
7.2141 N2
Mass of Natural Gas’ Composition
The mass of fuel and the composition of the air can be calculated using the
simplified combustion equation for natural gas. Thus, an equation is provided below:
m=nxM
where: n = number of moles, mol
m = mass of component, kg
M = molecular mass, kg/mol
Gravimetric Analysis
Gravimetric analysis involves multiplying a material's molecular mass by the
number of moles in that substance. The masses of the natural gas's various chemical
components are shown below.
A. Mass of air
Solving for the mass of air:
mair = n x M
55
mair = (MO2)(nO2) + (MN2)(nN2)
𝑘𝑔𝑂2 𝑘𝑔𝑁2
mair = (2)(16 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)(1.90662 mol) + (2)(14 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)(7.16896 mol)
mair = 261.74272 kga
The value for the combustion process was 261.74272 kg, as determined by the
computation of the mass of air in natural gas.
B. Mass of fuel
Calculating the mass of fuels:
1. For Methane, CH4
mCH4 = (MCH4)(nCH4)
𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔𝐻2
mCH4= [(1)(12 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶 ) + (4)(1 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)] [0.9505 mol]
mCH4= 15.208 kgCH4
2. For Ethane, C2H6
mC2H6 = (MC2H6)(nC2H6)
mC2H6= [(2)(12 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶 ) + (6)(1 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)] [0.0013 mol]
mC2H6= 0.039 kgC2H6
3. For Propane, C3H8
mC3H8 = (MC3H8)(nC3H8)
mC3H8= [(3)(12 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶 ) + (8)(1 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)] [0.0001 mol]
mC3H8= 0.0044 kgC3H8
4. For Carbon Dioxide, CO2
mCO2 = (MCO2)(nCO2)
56
𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝑔𝑂2
mCO2= [(1)(12 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶 ) + (2)(16 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)] [0.0025 mol]
mCO2= 0.11 kgCO2
5. For Nitrogen, N2
mN2 = (MN2)(nN2)
𝑘𝑔
mN2= [(2)(14 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶 )] [0.0452 mol]
mN2= 1.2656 kgN2
6. For Hydrogen Sulfide, H2S
mH2S = (MH2S)(nH2S)
mH2S= [(2)(1 𝑚𝑜𝑙𝐶 ) + (1)(32 𝑚𝑜𝑙
)] [0.0004 mol]
mH2S= 0.0136 kgH2S
Thus, the total mass of the fuel will be:
mf = mCH4 + mC2H6 + mC3H8 + mCO2 + mN2 + mH2S
mf = 15.208 kgCH4+ 0.039 kgC2H6 + 0.0044 kgC3H8 + 0.011 kgCO2 + 1.2656
kgN2 + 0.0136 kgH2S
mf = 16.6406 kgf
Meanwhile, 16.6406 kg is the obtained value for the mass of fuel in accordance
with the composition of natural gas for the combustion process.
Whereas, for the mass of the air-fuel mixture:
maf = ma + mf
maf = 261.74272 kga + 16.6406 kgf
maf = 278.38332 kg
57
Upon adding together the mass of air and the mass of the fuel component for
natural gas, the total mass arrived at 278.38332 kg.
Air-Fuel Ratio
The mass ratio of air to fuel is referred to as the air-fuel ratio. The formula for
calculating the air-fuel ratio is to divide the air mass by the fuel mass, as given below,
based on the acquired values for both masses.
𝑚𝑎
AF = 𝑚𝑓
261.74272 𝑘𝑔𝑎
AF = 16.6406 𝑘𝑔𝑓
AF = 15.72916361 kga/kgf
Therefore, the corresponding value of the air-fuel ratio for the natural gas
combustion process was 15.72916361 kga/kgf.
Mass Fraction of Natural Gas’ Composition
The obtained mass of each natural gas component as well as the total masses of
air, fuel, and air-fuel mixture will be utilized to calculate the mass fraction of the
composition of natural gas. Its formula can be seen as follows:
𝑚
𝑟𝑤 = 𝑚𝑡
where; 𝑟𝑤 = mass fraction of the component
m = mass of the component
𝑚𝑡 = mass of the mixture
Determining the mass fractions of each fuel composition:
a. For Methane, CH4
58
𝑚
rw, CH4 = 𝑚𝑡
15.208 𝑘𝑔
rw, CH4 = 16.6406 𝑘𝑔
rw, CH4 = 0.9139093542
b. For Ethane, C2H6
𝑚
rw, C2H6 = 𝑚𝑡
0.039 𝑘𝑔
rw, C2H6 = 16.6406 𝑘𝑔
rw, C2H6 = 0.002343665493
c. For Propane, C3H8
𝑚
rw, C3H8 = 𝑚𝑡
0.0044 𝑘𝑔
rw, C3H8 = 16.6406 𝑘𝑔
rw, C3H8= 0.0002644135428
d. For Carbon Dioxide, CO2
𝑚
rw, CO2 = 𝑚𝑡
0.11 𝑘𝑔
rw, CO2 = 16.6406 𝑘𝑔
rw, CO2 = 0.00661033857
e. For Hydrogen Sulfide, H2S
𝑚
rw, H2S = 𝑚𝑡
0.0136 𝑘𝑔
rw, H2S = 16.6406 𝑘𝑔
rw, H2S = 0.0008172782231
Hence, the mass fraction of fuel will be:
59
𝑚𝑓
rw, fuel= 𝑚𝑎𝑓
16.6406 𝑘𝑔
rw, fuel= 278.38332 𝑘𝑔
rw, fuel= 0.05977585151
On the other hand, the mass fractions for the natural gas’ air composition are
displayed below:
a. For Oxygen, O2
𝑚
rw, O2 = 𝑚𝑡
61.01184 𝑘𝑔
rw, O2 = 278.38332 𝑘𝑔
rw, O2 = 0.2330985175
b. For Nitrogen, N2
𝑚
rw, N2 = 𝑚𝑡
200.73088 𝑘𝑔
rw, N2 = 278.38332 𝑘𝑔
rw, N2 = 0.7669014825
Therefore, the mass fraction of air would be:
𝑚𝑎
rw, air= 𝑚𝑎𝑓
261.74272 𝑘𝑔
rw, air= 278.38332 𝑘𝑔
rw, air= 0.9402241485
Specific Heats in Constant Pressure and Volume
The following specific heat at constant pressure and volume parameters, along
with their corresponding values from Table 10, are required in order to compute the
60
equivalent specific heat of the fuel and air for the combustion process. The information
was taken from the 8th edition of Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke &
Sonntag (2012).
Table 20
Specific Heats of Cp and Cv
Composition Cp, kJ/kg-K Cv, kJ/kg-K
Methane 2.254 1.736
Ethane 1.766 1.490
Propane 1.679 1.490
Carbon Dioxide 0.842 0.653
Nitrogen 1.042 0.745
Hydrogen Sulfide 1.0048 0.7578
Oxygen 0.922 0.662

Source: Borgnakke & Sonntag (2012)
A. Specific Heat in Constant Pressure
As a result, the variables and numbers from Table 20 will be used to determine
each component's specific heat at constant pressure. The formula to apply in order to
calculate the specific heat at constant pressure is shown below.
Cpm = ∑(rw x Cp)
where: Cpm = specific heat in constant pressure of mixture
rw = mass fraction of compound
Cp = specific heat in constant pressure of compound
61
Computing the specific heat at constant pressure of the natural gas’ fuel
composition:
a. For Methane, CH4
Cp, CH4 = (rw, CH4)(Cp)
Cp, CH4 = (0.9139093542)(2.254 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, CH4 = 2.059951684 kJ/kg-K
b. For Ethane, C2H6
Cp, C2H6 = (rw, C2H6)(Cp)
Cp, C2H6 = (0.002343665493)(1.766 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, C2H6 = 0.00413891326 kJ/kg-K
Cp, C3H8 = (rw, C3H8)(Cp)
Cp, C3H8 = (0.0002644135428)(1.679 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, C3H8 = 0.0004439503383 kJ/kg-K
Cp, CO2 = (rw, CO2)(Cp)
Cp, CO2 = (0.00661033857)(0.842 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, CO2 =0.005565905076 kJ/kg-K
Cp, H2S = (rw, H2S)(Cp)
Cp, H2S = (0.0008172782231)(1.0048 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, H2S = 0.0008212011586 kJ/kg-K
Hence, the total specific heat at constant pressure of the fuel will be:
62
Cp,fuel = ∑(rw x Cp)
Cp,fuel = 2.059951684 kJ/kg-K + 0.00413891326 kJ/kg-K +
0.0004439503383 kJ/kg-K + 0.005565905076 kJ/kg-K +
0.0008212011586kJ/kg-K
Cp,fuel =2.070921654 kJ/kg-K
Computing for the specific heat at constant pressure of the natural gas’ air
composition:
a. For Oxygen, O2
Cp, O2 = (rw, O2)(Cp)
Cp, O2 = (0.2330985175)(0.922 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, O2 = 0.2149168331 kJ/kg-K
b. For Nitrogen, N2
Cp, N2 = (rw, N2)(Cp)
Cp, N2 = (0.7669014825)(1.042 kJ/kg-K)
Cp, N2 = 0.7991113448 kJ/kg-K
Therefore, the total specific heat at constant pressure in the air will be:
Cp,air = ∑(rw x Cp)
Cp,air = 0.2149168331 kJ/kg-K + 0.7991113448 kJ/kg-K
Cp,air = 1.014028178 kJ/kg-K
B. Specific Heat in Constant Volume
Meanwhile, the specific heat in a constant volume of each component of the
natural gas will be determined using the formula below.
Cvm = ∑(rw x Cv)
63
where: Cvm = specific heat in a constant volume of mixture
rw = mass fraction of compound
Cv= specific heat in a constant volume of compound
Solving for the specific heat in a constant volume of the natural gas’ fuel
composition:
a. For Methane, CH4
Cv, CH4 = (rw, CH4)(Cv)
Cv, CH4 = (0.9139093542)(1.736 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, CH4 = 1.586546639 kJ/kg-K
b. For Ethane, C2H6
Cv, C2H6 = (rw, C2H6)(Cv)
Cv, C2H6 = (0.002343665493)(1.490 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, C2H6 = 0.003492061584 kJ/kg-K
Cv, C3H8 = (rw, C3H8)(Cv)
Cv, C3H8 = (0.0002644135428)(1.490 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, C3H8 = 0.0003939761787 kJ/kg-K
Cv, CO2 = (rw, CO2)(Cv)
Cv, CO2 = (0.00661033857)(0.653 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, CO2 = 0.004316551086 kJ/kg-K
Cv, H2S = (rw, O2)(Cv)
64
Cv, H2S = (0.0008172782231)(0.7578 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, H2S = 0.0006193334375 kJ/kg-K
To sum up, the total specific heat in a constant volume of the fuel will be:
Cv,fuel = ∑(rw x Cv)
Cv,fuel = 1.586546639 kJ/kg-K + 0.003492061584 kJ/kg-K +
0.0003939761787 kJ/kg-K + 0.004316551086 kJ/kg-K +
0.0006193334375 kJ/kg-K
Cv,fuel = 1.595368561 kJ/kg-K
Solving for the specific heat in a constant volume of the natural gas’ air
composition:
a. For Oxygen, O2
Cv, O2 = (rw, O2)(Cv)
Cv, O2 = (0.2330985175)(0.662 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, O2 = 0.1543112186 kJ/kg-K
b. For Nitrogen, N2
Cv, N2 = (rw, N2)(Cv)
Cv, N2 = (0.7669014825)(0.745 kJ/kg-K)
Cv, N2 = 0.5713416045 kJ/kg-K
Hence, the total specific heat in a constant volume of the air is:
Cv,air = ∑(rw x Cv)
Cv,air = 0.1543112186 kJ/kg-K + 0.5713416045 kJ/kg-K
Cv,air = 0.725652823 kJ/kg-K
65
After determining the values, Table 21 presents the summarized values of the
specific heat in constant pressure and constant volume of the fuel.
Table 21
Summary of Cp and Cv of Fuel
Fuel
Composition
Cp, kJ/kg-K Cv, kJ/kg-K
Methane 2.05995 1.58655
Ethane 0.00414 0.00349
Propane 0.00044 0.00039
Carbon Dioxide 0.00557 0.00432
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.00082 0.00062
Total 2.07092 1.59537
Based on the table above, the total specific heat in constant pressure and constant
volume of the fuel composition were yielded to the values of 2.07092 kJ/kg-K and
1.59537 kJ/kg-K, respectively. It resulted from the partial values of the specific heat in
constant volume and constant pressure for every compound.
Whereas, shown in Table 22 are the summarized values of the specific heat in
constant pressure and volume of the air with the composition of air and nitrogen.
Table 22
Summary of Cp and Cv of Air
Air
Composition
Cp, kJ/kg-K Cv, kJ/kg-K
66
Table 22 (Continue)
Summary of Cp and Cv of Air
Nitrogen 0.79911 0.57134
Oxygen 0.21492 0.15431
Total 1.01403 0.72565
Presented in Table 22 is the summary of the calculated values for the air. Its total
specific heat in constant pressure and constant volume has corresponding values of
1.01403 kJ/kg-K and 0.72565 kJ/kg-K, respectively, which come from the summation of
specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen.
C. Specific Heat in Constant Pressure of the Air-Fuel Mixture
In order to calculate the specific heat at constant pressure of the air-fuel mixture:
a. For fuel
Cpt,fuel = rw,fuel x Cp,fuel
Cpt,fuel = (0.05977585151)(2.070921654 kJ/kg-K)
Cpt,fuel = 0.1237911053 kJ/kg-K
b. For air
Cpt,air = rw,air x Cp,air
Cpt,air = (0.9402241485)(1.014028178 kJ/kg-K)
Cpt,air = 0.9534137801 kJ/kg-K
c. For the air-fuel mixture
Cp,af = Cpt,fuel + Cpt,air
Cp,af = 0.1237911053 kJ/kg-K + 0.9534137801 kJ/kg-K
Cp,af = 1.077204885 kJ/kg-K
67
D. Specific Heat in Constant Volume of the Air-Fuel Mixture
Whereas, to solve for the specific heat in a constant volume of the air-fuel
mixture:
a. For fuel
Cvt,fuel = rw,fuel x Cv,fuel
Cvt,fuel = (0.0564498377)(1.595368561 kJ/kg-K)
Cvt,fuel = 0.09536451422 kJ/kg-K
b. For air
Cvt,air = rw,air x Cv,air
Cvt,air = (0.9435501623)(0.725652823 kJ/kg-K)
Cvt,air = 0.6822763076 kJ/kg-K
c. For the air-fuel mixture
Cv,af = Cvt,fuel + Cvt,airl
Cv,af = 0.09536451422 kJ/kg-K + 0.6822763076 kJ/kg-K
Cv,af = 0.7776408219 kJ/kg-K
Upon performing the calculations, a table is provided below, showing the
summary of the specific heats at constant pressure and volume as well as the mass
fractions for air, fuel, and the air-fuel mixture.
Table 23
Summary of Calculated Values for Air-Fuel Mixture
Air Fuel Air-Fuel Mixture
rw 0.9402241485 0.05977585151 —
Cpt (kJ/kg-K) 0.9534137801 0.1237911053 1.077204885
68
Table 23
Summary of Calculated Values for Air-Fuel Mixture
Cvt (kJ/kg-K) 0.6822763076 0.09536451422 0.7776408219
The summary of the calculated values for the air-fuel mixture is shown in Table
23. The calculated total specific heat at constant pressure is 1.077204885 kJ/kg-K, while
the calculated total specific heat at constant volume is 0.7776408219 kJ/kg-K. The
obtained values will be used to calculate the heat added and the work of the turbine and
compressor.
Specific Heat ratio
The ratio of a gas's specific heat at constant volume to its specific heat at constant
pressure is known as its specific heat ratio. In order to calculate:
𝐶𝑝
k= 𝐶𝑣
1.077204885 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾
k= 0.7776408219 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾
k= 1.385221628
Therefore, the value of the specific heat ratio resulted in 1.385221628.
Design Option 1
Presented below is the detailed calculation of design option 1, which consists of a
simple Brayton and Rankine Cycle. The calculation is classified into three parts: Gas
Cycle, Steam Cycle, and Combined Cycle.
A. Gas Cycle
Process 1 to 2
Solving for the inlet and outlet conditions in compressor 1:
69
𝑇2 𝑘−1
𝑇1 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
𝑘−1
𝑇2 = 𝑇1 𝑟𝑝 ( ) 𝑘
1.385221628−1
1.385221628
𝑇2 = 298 𝐾(12)
T2 = 594.7438247 K
Process 1 to 2’
With a compressor efficiency of 85% or 0.85:
𝑇2−𝑇1
η𝐶 = 𝑇2'−𝑇1
𝑇2−𝑇1
𝑇2' = η𝐶
+ 𝑇1
594.7438247 𝐾−298 𝐾
𝑇2' = 0.85
+ 298 𝐾
594.7438247 𝐾−298 𝐾
0. 85 = 𝑇2'−298 𝐾
T2’= 647.110382 K
Process 2 to 3
Through the heat constant pressure heat addition, where T3 = 1300 K:
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇3 − 𝑇2')
𝑘𝐽
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = (1. 014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1, 300 𝐾 − 647. 110382 𝐾)
Qin = 703.2958862 kJ/kg
Process 3 to 4
Computing for the inlet and outlet conditions in gas turbine in an ideal state:
𝑇3 𝑘−1
𝑇4 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
70
𝑇3
T4 = 𝑘−1
(𝑟𝑝) 𝑘
1300 𝐾
T4 = 1.385221628−1
1.385221628
(12)
T4 = 651.3728835 K
Process 3 to 4’
With a gas turbine efficiency of 85% or 0.85:
𝑇3−𝑇4'
η𝑇 = 𝑇3−𝑇4
𝑇4' = 𝑇3 − η𝑇(𝑇3 − 𝑇4)
𝑇4' = 1, 300 𝐾 − 0. 85(1, 300 𝐾 − 651. 3728835809 𝐾)
T4’ = 748.666951 K
Solving for the actual compressor work:
𝑊𝑐' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇2' − 𝑇1)
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑐' = (1. 014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(647. 110382 𝐾 − 298 𝐾)
Wc’= 354.0077645 kJ/kg
Hence, the actual gas turbine work will be:
𝑊𝑡' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇3 − 𝑇4')
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑡' = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1, 300 𝐾 − 748. 666951 𝐾)
Wt’ = 593.8986539 kJ/kg
In the topping cycle, the total work net calculated will be:
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑔𝑐 = 𝑊𝑡' − 𝑊𝑐'
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑔𝑐 = (593. 8986539 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔 − 354. 0077645 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔)
71
Wnet,gc = 239.8908894 kJ/kg
Mass and Energy Balance
Solving for the brake power, BP for a generator efficiency of 98.5% or 0.985:
𝐸𝑃
ηg = 𝐵𝑃
𝐸𝑃
BP = η𝑔
1000 𝑘𝑊 1 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
93 𝑀𝑊 ( )( )
BP = 1 𝑀𝑊
0.985
1 𝑘𝑊
BP = 94416.24365 kJ/s
Solving for the mass of air-fuel mixture, maf:
𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
maf = 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
94416.24365 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
maf = 239.8908894 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
maf = 393.5799475 kg/s
Solving for the mass of air, ma using the air-fuel ratio of 15.72916361:
𝑚𝑎𝑓
ma = 𝐴𝐹
393.5799475 𝑘𝑔/𝑠
ma = 15.72916361
ma = 25.02230616 kg/s
Solving for the mass of air, mf:
mf = maf - ma
mf = 393.5799475 kg/s - 25.02230616 kg/s
mf = 368.5576413 kg/s
At Compressor
72
Figure 30. Control Volume at Compressor for Design Option 1
Eout = Ein
Wc ' + m1CpaT1 = m2CpaT2’
Solving for the mass balance at the compressor:
Wc ' = m2CpaT2’ - m1CpaT1 ; ma = m1 = m2
Wc ' = maCpa(T2’- T1)
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Wc ' = (25.02230616 𝑠
)(1.014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(647.110382 - 298) K
Wc ' = 138,601.043 kJ/s
At Combustion Chamber
Figure 31. Control Volume at Combustion Chamber for Design Option 1
Eout = Ein
Qin + m2CpT2’ = m3CpT3
Solving for the mass balance at the combustion chamber:
73
Qin = m3CpT3 - m2CpT2’ ; maf = m2 = m3
Qin = mafCp(T3- T2’)
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Qin = (393.5799475 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1300 - 647.110382) K
Qin = 276,803.1579 kJ/s
At Gas Turbine
Figure 32. Control Volume at Gas Turbine for Design Option 1

Eout = Ein
Wt ' + m4CpT4’ = m3CpT3
Solving for the mass balance at the gas turbine:
Wt ' = m3CpT3 - m4CpT4’ ; maf = m3 = m4
Wt ' = mafCp(T3- T4’)
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Wt ' = (393.5799475 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1300 - 748.666951) K
Wt ' = 233,746.601 kJ/s
Therefore, the thermal efficiency, ηth will be:
𝑊𝑡' − 𝑊𝑐'
η𝑡ℎ = 𝑄𝑖𝑛
𝑥 100%
(233,746.601 −138,601.043) 𝑘𝑊
η𝑡ℎ = 276,803.1579 𝑘𝑊
𝑥 100%
74
ηth = 34.37300308%
The calculated thermal efficiency of the Brayton cycle is approximately 34.37%,
which falls on the range of 30-40% as typical values of efficiencies for gas cycles.
(Boyce, 2002)
Table 24 displays the table on the summary of calculations performed to analyze
the proposed designs.
Table 24
Summary of Calculations for Gas Cycle of Design Option 1
Parameter Value
Heat Added, Qin 276,803.1579 kW
Compressor Work, Wc’ 138,601.043 kW
Turbine Work, Wt’ 233,746.601 kW
Net Work Output, Wnet 95,145.55801 kW
Thermal Efficiency 34.37300308 %
Table 14 presents the summary of calculation for design option 1, particularly the
gas or topping cycle. It is shown that the heat added, compressor work, turbine work, net
work output, and thermal efficiency has the values as follow: 276,803.1579 kW,
138,601.043 kW, 233,746.601 kW, 95,145.55801 kW, and 34.37300308 %.
B. Steam Cycle
Statepoint 6
Pressure, P6 3 MPa
Temperature, T6 400 °C
From Table 2 of Steam Table
75
Tsat @ 3 MPa = 233.9 °C
∴ T6 > Tsat, the statepoint is in superheated vapor region
At P6 = 3 MPa and 400 °C
h6 = 3230.9 kJ/kg
s6 = 6.9212 kJ/kg -K
v6 = 0.09936 m3/kg
Statepoint 7
Since the statepoint condition is in an isentropic process, s6 = s7.
s7 = 6.9212 kJ/kg -K
P7 = 0.013 MPa
The statepoint condition is in a wet mixture.
From Table 2 at 0.013 MPa
hf7 = 213.67 kJ/kg
hfg7 = 2380.2 kJ/kg
sf7 = 0.7172 kJ/kg - K
sfg7 = 7.3412 kJ/kg - K
Solving for the quality, x:
𝑠7 − 𝑠𝑓7
x= 𝑠𝑓𝑔7
7.133786815 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾 − 0.7172 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾
x= 7.3412 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾
x = 0.8450934452
Solving for the enthalpy, h7:
h7 = hf7 + xhfg7
h7 = 213.67 kJ/kg + 0.8450934452 (2380.2 kJ/kg)

76
h7 = 2,225.161418 kJ/kg
Statepoint 8
Since the process is isobaric, P8 = P7 = 0.013 MPa.
P8 = P7 = 0.013 MPa
Since the statepoint condition is in saturated liquid, the values of saturated liquid
from Table 2 of Steam Table are determined.
h8 = h8 = 213.67 kJ/kg
v8 = v8 = 0.0010126 m3/kg
s8 = sf8 = 0.7172 kJ/kg - K
Statepoint 9
The work of the condensate pump should be solved first using the formula Wpump
= vf8 (P9 - P8), before trying to solve for statepoint enthalpy.
Wpump = vf8 (P9 - P8)
1 𝑘𝐽
Wpump = 0.0010126 m3/kg (3,000 - 13) kPa ( 3 )
𝑘𝑃𝑎−𝑚
Wpump = 3.0246362 kJ/kg
Solving for h9:
h9 = Wpump + h8
h9 = 3.0246362 kJ/kg + 213.67 kJ/kg
h9 = 216.6946362 kJ/kg
Statepoint 9’
𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝
np = 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝'
where np = 0.84
77
3.0246362 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
Wpump’ = 0.84
Wpump’ = 3.600757381 kJ/kg
Solving for h9’
h9’ = Wpump + h8
h9’ = 3.600757381 kJ/kg + 213.67 kJ/kg
h9’ = 217.2707574 kJ/kg
Solving for Work of Turbine
Wt = h6 - h7
Wt = 3230.9 kJ/kg - 2225.161418 kJ/kg
Wt = 1005.738582 kJ/kg
Solving for Actual Work of Turbine
𝑊𝑡'
nt = 𝑊𝑡
where nt = 0.9
Wt’ = nt x Wt
Wt’ = 0.9 x 1005.738582 kJ/kg
Wt’ = 905.1647235 kJ/kg
Solving for the Net Work Output, Wnet
Wnet = Wt’ - Wpump’
Wnet = 905.1647235 kJ/kg - 3.600757381 kJ/kg
Wnet = 901.5639662 kJ/kg
𝐸𝑃
ηg = 𝐵𝑃
78
𝐸𝑃
BP = η𝑔
1000 𝑘𝑊 1 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
155 𝑀𝑊 ( )( )
BP = 1 𝑀𝑊
0.985
1 𝑘𝑊
BP = 157360.4061 kJ/s
Solving for the mass of steam, ms:
𝐵𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 −𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝐶𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

ms = 𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
157360.4061 𝑘𝐽/𝑠 −95145.55801 𝑘𝐽/𝑠

ms = 901.5639662 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
ms = 69.00769154 kg/s
At Turbine
Figure 33. Control Volume at Steam Turbine for Design Option 1
Eout = Ein
Wt + msh7 = msh6
Solving for Work of Turbine, Wt’
Wt = ms(h6 - h7)
Wt = 69.00769154 kg/s (3230.9 - 2225.161418) kJ/kg
Wt = 69403.69782 kW
Solving for Actual Work of Turbine, Wt’
Wt’ = 69.00769154 kg/s (905.1647235 kJ/kg)
79
Wt’ = 62463.32804 kW
At Pump
Figure 34. Control Volume at Pump for Design Option 1
Eout = Ein
msh9’ = Wpump’ + msh8
Solving for Work of Pump, Wpump’
Wpump’ = ms (h9’- h8)
Wpump’ = 69.00769154 kg/s (217.2707574 - 213.67 ) kJ/kg
Wpump’ = 248.4799547 kW
At HRSG
Figure 35. Control Volume at HRSG for Design Option 1
Eout = Ein
msh6 = Qin + msh9’
80
Solving for Head Added, Qin
Qin = ms (h6 - h9’)
Qin = 69.00769154 kg/s (3230.9 - 217.2707574) kJ/kg
Qin = 207,963.5972 kW
At Condenser
Figure 36. Control Volume at Condenser for Design Option 1
Eout = Ein
Qout + msh8 = + msh7’
Solving for Head Rejected, Qout
Qout = ms (h7 - h8)
Qout = 69.00769154 kg/s (2225.161418 - 213.67) kJ/kg
Qout = 138808.3793 kW
Solving for Net Work Out of Steam Turbine, Wnet
Wnet = ( Wt’ - Wpump’)
Wnet = ( 62463.32804 - 248.4799547 ) kW
Wnet = 62,214.84808 kW
Solving for Thermal Efficiency of Steam Turbine, Wnet
81
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
nth = 𝑄𝑖𝑛
x 100 %
62,214.84808 𝑘𝑊
nth = 207,963.5972
x 100 %
nth = 29.9162204 %
The calculated thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle is approximately 30%,
which falls on the range of 30-40% as typical values of efficiencies for steam cycles.
(Boyce, 2002)
Table 25
Summary of Calculations for Steam Cycle of Design Option 1
Parameter Value
Pump Work, Wp’ 208.7231619 kW
steam or bottoming cycle. It is shown that the heat added, pump work, turbine work, net
208.7231619 kW, 62,463.32804 kW, 62,214.84808 kW, and 29.9162204 %.
82
Combined Cycle
Total Net Work Output
Wnet, total = Wnet, gas + Wnet, steam
Wnet, total = 95145.55801 kW + 62,214.84808 kW
Wnet, total = 157360.4061 kW
Thermal Efficiency of Combined Cycle, nth1
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡, 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
nth1 = 𝑄𝑖𝑛, 𝑔𝑎𝑠
x 100 %
157,360.4061 𝑘𝑊
nth1 = 276,803.1579
x 100 %
nth1 = 56.84920911 %
As indicated in the Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power
Plants by Boyce (2002), thermal efficiencies can reach up to 60%. Hence, the calculated
efficiency of 56.84920911 % is acceptable.
Table 26
Summary of Calculations for Design Option 1
Parameter Value
Total Net Work Output, Wnet,total 157,360.4061 kW
Thermal Efficiency, nth1 56.84920911 %
Table 26 presents the summary of calculation for design option 1 of combined
cycle. It is shown that the total net work output and thermal efficiency has the values as
follows: 157,360.4061 kW and 56.84920911 %.
83
Design Option 2
Discussed below is the detailed calculation of design option 2, classified into
three parts: Gas Cycle, Steam Cycle, and Combined Cycle.
A. Gas Cycle
Process 1 to 2
𝑇2 𝑘−1
𝑇1 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
𝑘−1
𝑇2 = 𝑇1 𝑟𝑝 ( ) 𝑘
1.385221628−1
1.385221628
𝑇2 = 298 𝐾(15)
T2 = 632.8197442 K
Process 1 to 2’
𝑇2−𝑇1
η𝐶 = 𝑇2'−𝑇1
𝑇2−𝑇1
𝑇2' = η𝐶
+ 𝑇1
632.8197442−298 𝐾
𝑇2' = 0.85
+ 298 𝐾
632.8197442 𝐾−298 𝐾
0. 85 = 𝑇2'−298 𝐾
T2’= 691.9055815 K
Process 2 to 3
84
𝑘𝐽
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1, 300 𝐾 − 691. 9055815 𝐾)
Qin = 655.0422785 kJ/kg
Process 3 to 4
Computing for the inlet and outlet conditions in gas turbine in an ideal state:
𝑇3 𝑘−1
𝑇4 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
𝑇3
T4 = 𝑘−1
(𝑟𝑝) 𝑘
1300 𝐾
T4 = 1.385221628−1
1.385221628
(15)
T4 = 612.1806463 K
Process 3 to 4’
𝑇3−𝑇4'
𝑇4' = 𝑇3 − η𝑇(𝑇3 − 𝑇4)
𝑇4' = 1, 300 𝐾 − 0. 85(1, 300 𝐾 − 612. 1806463 𝐾)
T4’ = 715.3535493 K
𝑊𝑐' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇2' − 𝑇1)
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑐' = (1. 014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(691. 9055815 𝐾 − 298 𝐾)
Wc’= 399.431359 kJ/kg
𝑊𝑡' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇3 − 𝑇4')
85
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑡' = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1, 300 𝐾 − 715. 3535493 𝐾)
Wt’ = 629.7840129 kJ/kg
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑔𝑐 = (629. 7840129 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔 − 399. 431359 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔)
Wnet,gc = 230.3526539 kJ/kg
𝐸𝑃
ηg = 𝐵𝑃
𝐸𝑃
BP = η𝑔
1000 𝑘𝑊 1 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
93 𝑀𝑊 ( )( )
BP = 1 𝑀𝑊
0.985
1 𝑘𝑊
BP = 94416.24365 kJ/s
94416.24365 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
maf = 230.3526539 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
maf = 409.876952 kg/s
Solving for the mass of air, ma using the air-fuel ratio of 15.72916361:
𝑚𝑎𝑓
ma = 𝐴𝐹
409.876952 𝑘𝑔/𝑠
ma = 15.72916361
ma = 26.05840731 kg/s
86
Solving for the mass of air, mf:
mf = maf - ma
mf = 409.876952 kg/s - 26.05840731 kg/s
mf = 383.8185447 kg/s
At Compressor
Eout = Ein
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Wc ' = ( 26.05840731 𝑠
)(1.014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(691.9055815 - 298) K
Wc ' = 162,860.7399 kJ/s
87
Eout = Ein
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Qin = (409.876952 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1300 - 691.9055815) K
Qin = 268,486.7325 kJ/s
At Gas Turbine
Figure 39. Control Volume at Gas Turbine for Design Option 2

Eout = Ein
Wt ' + m4CpT4’ = m3CpT3
Solving for the mass balance at the gas turbine:
Wt ' = m3CpT3 - m4CpT4’ ; maf = m3 = m4
Wt ' = mafCp(T3- T4’)
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Wt ' = (409.876952 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1300 - 715.3535493) K
Wt ' = 258,133.9516 kJ/s
88
𝑊𝑡' − 𝑊𝑐'
𝑥 100%
(258,133.9516 −162,860.7399) 𝑘𝑊
η𝑡ℎ = 268,486.7325 𝑘𝑊
𝑥 100%
ηth = 35.48525876%
The calculated thermal efficiency of the Brayton cycle is approximately 35.49%,
which falls on the range of 30-40% as typical values of efficiencies for gas cycles.
(Boyce, 2002)
Table 27
Parameter Value
Heat Added, Qin 268486.7325 kW
Compressor Work, Wc’ 162860.7399 kW
Turbine Work, Wt’ 258133.9516 kW
Net Work Output, Wnet 95273.21178 kW
gas or topping cycle with a simple cycle. It is shown that the heat added, compressor
work, turbine work, net work output, and thermal efficiency were computed from the
temperatures and pressures obtained in each statepoint. Hence, the total values are listed
89
as follows: 276,803.1579 kW, 138,601.043 kW, 233,746.601 kW, 95,145.55801 kW, and
34.37300308 %.
B. Steam Cycle
Statepoint 6
Pressure, P6 14 MPa
Tsat @ 16.5 MPa = 336.701 °C
T6 > Tsat, the statepoint is in the superheated vapor region.
At 14 MPa and 540 °C
h6 = 3432.4 kJ/kg
s6 = 6.5289 kJ/kg -K
Statepoint 7
Since this statepoint condition is in an isentropic process, s7 = s6.
s7 = 6.5289 kJ/kg -K
P7 = 4.5 MPa
At 4.5 MPa
P (MPa) sf (kJ/kg - K) sg (kJ/kg-K)
4.4 2.8485 6.0296
4.5 2.86085 6.01995
4.6 2.8732 6.0103
90
s7 > sg, the statepoint is in superheated vapor region
Solving for h and T at 4.5 MPa and 6.5289 kJ/kg -K:
At 4.5 MPa
s (kJ/kg-K) h (kJ/kg) T (°C)
6.5131 3080.6 350
6.5289 3081.0029 354.029
6.5537 3106.1 360
T7 = 354.029°C
h7 = 3081.0029 kJ/kg
Statepoint 8
P8 = P7 = 4.5 MPa
T8 = 540 °C
Interpolation Method
P, MPa Tsat, °C
4.4 256.12
4.5 257.475
4.6 258.83
Tsat 4.5 MPa = 257.475 °C
T8 > Tsat, the statepoint is in superheated vapor region
At 4.5 MPa and 540 °C
91
h8 = 3531.9 kJ/kg
s8 = 7.1467 kJ/kg -K
Statepoint 9
Since the statepoint condition is in an isentropic process, s8 = s9.
s9 = 7.1467 kJ/kg -K
P9 = 0.013 MPa
From Table 2 at 0.013 MPa:
hf9 = 213.67 kJ/kg
hfg9 = 2380.2 kJ/kg
sf9 = 0.7172 kJ/kg - K
sfg9 = 7.3412 kJ/kg - K
𝑠9 − 𝑠𝑓9
x= 𝑠𝑓𝑔9
7.1467 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾 − 0.7172 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾

x= 7.3412 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾
x = 0.8758104942
Solving for the enthalpy, h9:
h9 = hf9 + xhfg9
h9 = 213.67 kJ/kg + 0.8758104942 (2380.2 kJ/kg)
h9 = 2298.274138 kJ/kg
Statepoint 10
P10 = P9 = 0.013 MPa
92
h10 = hf10 = 213.67 kJ/kg
v10 = vf10 = 0.0010126 m3/kg
s10 = sf10 = 0.7172 kJ/kg - K
Statepoint 11
The work of the condenser pump should be solved first using the formula Wpump =
vf10 (P11 - P10), before trying to solve for statepoint enthalpy.
Wpump = vf10 (P11 - P10)
Wpump = 0.0010126 m3/kg (14000 - 13) kPa
Wpump = 14.1632362 kJ/kg
Solving for h11:
h11 = Wpump + h10
h11 = 14.1632362 kJ/kg + 213.67 kJ/kg
h11 =227.8332362 kJ/kg
Statepoint 11’
𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝
np = 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝'
where np = 0.84
14.1632362 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
Wpump’ = 0.84
Wpump’ = 16.86099548 kJ/kg
Solving for h11’:
h11’ = Wpump’ + h10
93
h11’ = 16.86099548 kJ/kg + 213.67 kJ/kg
h11’ = 230.5309955 kJ/kg
Solving for the work of turbine:
Wt = (h6 + h8) - (h7 + h9)
Wt = (3432.4 +3531.9) kJ/kg - (3089.0029 + 2298.274138) kJ/kg
Wt = 1585.022962 kJ/kg
Solving for the actual work of turbine:
𝑊𝑡'
nt = 𝑊𝑡
where nt = 0.9
Wt’ = nt x Wt
Wt’ = 0.9 x 1585.022962 kJ/kg
Wt’ = 1426.520666 kJ/kg
Solving for the net work output, Wnet:
Wnet = Wt’ - Wpump’
Wnet = 1426.520666 kJ/kg - 16.86099548 kJ/kg
Wnet = 1409.65967 kJ/kg
Mass Balance and Energy Balance
𝐸𝑃
ηg = 𝐵𝑃
𝐸𝑃
BP = η𝑔
1000 𝑘𝑊 1 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
155 𝑀𝑊 ( )( )
BP = 1 𝑀𝑊
0.985
1 𝑘𝑊
BP = 157360.4061 kJ/s
94
Solving for the mass of steam, ms

157360.4061 𝑘𝐽/𝑠 −95273.21178 𝑘𝐽/𝑠

ms = 1409.65967 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
ms = 44.04410202 kg/s
At High Pressure Turbine
Figure 40. Control Volume at Steam High Pressure Turbine for Design Option 2
Eout = Ein
WHPT+ msh7 = msh6
Solving for Work of High Pressure Turbine, WHPT
WHPT = ms(h6 - h7)
WHPT = 44.04410202 kg/s (3432.4 - 3081.0029) kJ/kg
WHPT =15,476.96972 kW
At Low Pressure Turbine
Figure 41. Control Volume at Steam Low Pressure Turbine for Design Option 2
95
Eout = Ein
WLPT+ msh9 = msh8
Solving for Work of High Pressure Turbine, WLPT
WLPT = ms(h8 - h9)
WLPT = 44.04410202 kg/s (3531.9 - 2298.274138) kJ/kg
WLPT =54,333.94332 kW
Solving for Work of Turbine, Wt
Wt = WHPT + WLPT
Wt = 15,476.96972 kW +54,333.94332 kW
Wt = 69,810.91304 kW
Wt’ = 44.04410202 kg/s (1426.520666 kJ/kg)
Wt’ = 62,829.82172 kW
At Pump
Figure 42. Control Volume at Pump for Design Option 2
Eout = Ein
msh11’ = Wpump’ + m10h8
Wpump’ = ms (h11’- h10)
96
Wpump’ = 44.04410202 kg/s (230.5309955 - 213.67 ) kJ/kg
Wpump’ = 742.627406 kW
At HRSG
Eout = Ein
msh6 + m8h8 = Qin + msh7+ msh11’
Qin = ms [(h6 + h8) - (h7 + h11’)]
Qin = 44.04410202 kg/s [(3432.4 + 3531.9) - (3081.0029 + 230.5309955)] kJ/kg
Qin = 160,882.8029 kW
At Condenser
Eout = Ein
Qout + msh10 = msh9
97
Solving for Head Rejected, Qout
Qout = ms (h9 - h10)
Qout = 44.04410202 kg/s (2298.274138 - 213.67) kJ/kg
Qout = 91814.51733 kW
Wnet = ( 62829.82172 - 742.627406) kW
Wnet = 62087.19432 kW
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
nth = 𝑄𝑖𝑛
x 100 %
62087.19432 𝑘𝑊
nth = 160882.8029 𝑘𝑊
x 100 %
nth = 23.12486495 %
The calculated thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle is approximately 23.12%,
which falls on the range of 20-40% as typical values of efficiencies for steam cycles.
(Boyce, 2002)
Table 28
Parameter Value
98
Table 28
742.627406 kW, 62,829.82172 kW, and 62,087.82172 kW.
Combined Cycle
Wnet, total = 95,273.21178 + 62,087.19432 kW
Wnet, total = 157,360.4061 kW
x 100 %
157,360.4061 𝑘𝑊
nth1 = 268,486.7325𝑘𝑊
x 100 %
nth1 = 58.61012372 %
efficiency of 58.61012372 % is acceptable.
99
Table 29
Parameter Value
follows: 157,360.4061 kW and 58.61012372 %.
Design Option 3:
Displayed below is the detailed calculation of design option 3, classified into
three parts: Gas Cycle, Steam Cycle, and Combined Cycle.
A. Gas Cycle
Process 1 to 2
𝑇2 𝑘−1
𝑇1 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
𝑘−1
𝑇2 = 𝑇1 𝑟𝑝 ( ) 𝑘
1.385221628−1
1.385221628
𝑇2 = 298 𝐾(3. 5)
T2 = 420.9912823 K
Process 1 to 2’
𝑇2−𝑇1
η𝐶 = 𝑇2'−𝑇1
100
𝑇2−𝑇1
𝑇2' = η𝐶
+ 𝑇1
420.9912823 𝐾−298 𝐾
𝑇2' = 0.85
+ 298 𝐾
420.9912823 𝐾−298 𝐾
0. 85 = 𝑇2'−298 𝐾
T2’= 442.6956262 K
Process 2 to 3
𝑘𝐽
𝑄𝑖𝑛 = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1073 𝐾 − 442. 6956262 𝐾)
Qin = 678.9669507 kJ/kg
Process 3 to 4
Computing for the inlet and outlet conditions in a gas turbine in an ideal state:
𝑇3 𝑘−1
𝑇4 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
𝑇3
T4 = 𝑘−1
(𝑟𝑝) 𝑘
1073 𝐾
T4 = 1.385221628−1
1.385221628
(3.5)
T4 = 759.5264165 K
Process 3 to 4’
𝑇3−𝑇4'
𝑇4' = 𝑇3 − η𝑇(𝑇3 − 𝑇4)
101
𝑇4' = 1073 𝐾 − 0. 85(1073 𝐾 − 759. 5264165 𝐾)
T4’ = 806.547454 K
Process 5 to 6
Computing for the inlet and outlet conditions in a gas turbine in an ideal state, when T3 =
T5.
𝑇5 𝑘−1
𝑇6 ( )
= 𝑟𝑝 𝑘
𝑇5
T6 = 𝑘−1
(𝑟𝑝) 𝑘
1073 𝐾
T6 = 1.385221628−1
1.385221628
(3.5)
T6 = 759.5264165 K
Process 5 to 6’
𝑇3−𝑇4'
𝑇6' = 𝑇5 − η𝑇(𝑇5 − 𝑇6)
𝑇6' = 1073 𝐾 − 0. 85(1073 𝐾 − 759. 5264165 𝐾)
T6’ = 806.547454 K
𝑊𝑐' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇2' − 𝑇1)
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑐' = (1. 014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(442. 6956262 𝐾 − 298 𝐾)
Wc’= 146.7254422 kJ/kg
Solving for the actual high pressure turbine work:
102
𝑊𝑡1' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇3 − 𝑇4')
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑡1' = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1073 𝐾 − 806. 547454 𝐾)
Wt1’= 287.023984 kJ/kg
Solving for the actual low pressure turbine work:
𝑊𝑡2' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇5 − 𝑇6')
𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑡2' = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1073 𝐾 − 806. 547454 𝐾)
Wt2’= 287.023984 kJ/kg
𝑊𝑡' = 𝑊𝑡1 + 𝑊𝑡2
𝑊𝑡' = 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇3 − 𝑇4') + 𝐶𝑝𝑡(𝑇5 − 𝑇6')
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
𝑊𝑡' = (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)(1073 𝐾 − 806. 547454 𝐾) + (1. 077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾
)
(1073 𝐾 − 806. 547454 𝐾)
Wt’ = 574.0479685 kJ/kg
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡,𝑔𝑐 = (574. 0479685 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔 − 146. 7254422 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔)
Wnet,gc =427.3225263 kJ/kg
𝐸𝑃
ηg = 𝐵𝑃
𝐸𝑃
BP = η𝑔
103
1000 𝑘𝑊 1 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
93 𝑀𝑊 ( )( )
BP = 1 𝑀𝑊
0.985
1 𝑘𝑊
BP = 94416.24365 kJ/s
94416.24365 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
maf = 427.3225263 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
maf = 220.9484355 kg/s
Solving for the mass of fuel, mf using the air-fuel ratio of 15.72916361:
𝑚𝑎𝑓
mf = 𝐴𝐹
220.9484355 𝑘𝑔/𝑠
mf = 15.72916361
mf = 14.04705558 kg/s
Solving for the mass of air, ma:
ma = maf - mf
ma = 220.9484355 kg/s - 14.04705558 kg/s
ma = 206.9013799 kg/s
At Compressor
Eout = Ein
104
𝑘𝑔 𝑘𝐽
Wc ' = (206.9013799 𝑠
)(1.014028178 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(442.6956262 - 298) K
Wc ' = 30,357.69646 kJ/s
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Qin = (220.9484355 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1073- 442.6956262) K
Qin = 150,016.6855 kJ/s
At High Pressure Gas Turbine
Figure 47. Control Volume at High Pressure Gas Turbine for Design Option 3
105
Eout = Ein
Wt1 ' + m4CpT4’ = m3CpT3
Solving for the mass balance at the high pressure gas turbine:
Wt1 ' = m3CpT3 - m6CpT6’ ; maf = m3 = m4 = m6
Wt1 ' = mafCp(T3 - T4’) ; T3 and T4’ = T6’
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Wt1 ' = (220.9484355 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1073-806.547454) K
Wt1 ' = 63,417.50028 kJ/s
At Reheater
Figure 48. Control Volume at Reheater for Design Option 3
Eout = Ein
Qreheat + m4CpT4’ = + m5CpT5
Solving for the mass balance at the reheater:
Qreheat = m5CpT5 - m4CpT4’ ; maf = m5 = m4
Qreheat = mafCp(T5 - T4’)
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Qreheat = (220.9484355 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1073 - 570.9171458) K
Qreheat = 119,499.1004 kJ/s
106
At Low Pressure Gas Turbine
Figure 49. Control Volume at Low Pressure Gas Turbine for Design Option 3
Eout = Ein
Wt2 ' + m6CpT6’ = m5CpT5
Solving for the mass balance at the low pressure gas turbine:
Wt2 ' = m5CpT5 - m6CpT6’ ; maf = m5 = m6
Wt2 ' = mafCp(T5 -T6’)
𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝐽
Wt2 ' = (220.9484355 𝑠
)(1.077204885 𝑘𝑔−𝐾 )(1073 - 806.547454) K
Wt2 ' = 63,417.50028 kJ/s
Solving for the total Qin:
Qin,t = Qin + Qreheater
Qin,t = 150,016.6855 kJ/s + 119,499.1004 kJ/s
Qin,t = 269,515.7859 kJ/s
𝑊𝑡1' + 𝑊𝑡2' − 𝑊𝑐'

𝑥 100%
(63,417.50028 +63,417.50028 −30,357.69646) 𝑘𝑊

η𝑡ℎ = 269,515.7859 𝑘𝑊
𝑥 100%
ηth = 35.79653183%
107
The calculated thermal efficiency of the Brayton cycle is approximately
35.79653183 %, which is included at the range of 30-40% as typical values of
efficiencies for gas cycles. (Boyce, 2002)
Table 30
Parameter Value
Compressor Work, Wc’ 30,357.6965 kW
gas or topping cycle. It is shown that the heat added, compressor work, turbine work, net
30,357.6965 kW, 126,835.0006 kW, 94,416.24365 kW, and 35.79653183 %.
B. Steam Cycle
Statepoint 8
Pressure, P8 16.5 MPa
108
P, MPa Tsat, °C
16.4 349.44
16.5 349.935
16.6 350.43
Tsat @ 16.5 MPa = 349.8535 °C
T8 > Tsat, the statepoint is in the superheated vapor region.
At 16.5 MPa
T (°C) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg-K)
580 3515 6.5592
585 3528.55 6.575
590 3542.1 6.5908
h8 = 3528.55 kJ/kg
s8 = 6.575 kJ/kg -K
Statepoint 9
Since this statepoint condition is in an isentropic process, s9 = s8.
s9 = 6.575 kJ/kg -K
P9 = 4.5 MPa
P (MPa) sf (kJ/kg - K) sg (kJ/kg-K)

4.4 2.8485 6.0296
4.5 2.86085 6.01995
4.6 2.8732 6.0103
109
s9 > sg, the statepoint is in superheated vapor region
Solving for h and T at 4.5 MPa and 6.575 kJ/kg -K:
At 4.5 MPa
s (kJ/kg-K) h (kJ/kg) T (°C)
6.5537 3106.1 360
6.575 3119.703817 365.4198473
6.593 3131.2 370
T9 =365.4198473°C
h9 = 3119.703817 kJ/kg
Statepoint 10
P10 = P9 = 4.5 MPa
T10 = 585 °C
P, MPa Tsat, °C
4.4 256.12
4.5 257.475
4.6 258.83
Tsat 4.5 MPa = 257.475 °C
T8 > Tsat, the statepoint is in superheated vapor region
At 4.5 MPa
T (°C) h (kJ/kg) s (kJ/kg-K)
580 3624.3 7.2575
110
585 3635.85 7.27095
590 3647.4 7.2844
h10 = 3635.85 kJ/kg
s10 = 7.27095 kJ/kg -K
Statepoint 11
Since the statepoint condition is in isentropic process, s10 = s11.
s11 = 7.27095 kJ/kg -K
Since the statepoint condition is in saturated vapor, sg = s11
sg = 7.27095 kJ/kg -K
Solving for P11, T11 and h11
sg (kJ/kg-K) P (MPa) T (°C) hg(kJ/kg)

7.2586 0.135 108.24 2688.8
7.27095 0.1300992063 107.1520238 2687.13373
7.2712 0.13 107.13 2687.1
h11 = 2687.13373 kJ/kg
P11 =0.1300992063 MPa
T11 = 107.1520238 °C
Statepoint 12
Since the statepoint condition is in isentropic process, s12 = s11.
s12= 7.27095 kJ/kg -K
P12 = 0.013 MPa
111
hf12 = 213.67 kJ/kg
hfg12 = 2380.2 kJ/kg
sf12 = 0.7172 kJ/kg - K
sfg12 = 7.3412 kJ/kg - K
𝑠12 − 𝑠𝑓12
x= 𝑠𝑓𝑔12
7.27095 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔 −𝐾 − 0.7172 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾

x= 7.3412 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔−𝐾
x = 0.8927355201
Solving for the enthalpy, h12
h12 = hf12 + xhfg12
h12 = 213.67 kJ/kg + 0.8927355201 (2380.2 kJ/kg)
h12 = 2338.559085 kJ/kg
Statepoint 13
P13 = P12 = 0.013 MPa
h13 = hf13 = 213.67 kJ/kg
v13 = vf13 = 0.0010126 m3/kg
s13 = sf13 = 0.7172 kJ/kg - K
112
Statepoint 14
The work of the condenser pump should be solved first using the formula Wpump,1
Wpump,1 = vf13 (P14 - P13)
Wpump,1 = 0.0010126 m3/kg (130.0992063 - 13) kPa
Wpump,1 = 0.1185746563 kJ/kg
Solving for h14
h14 = Wpump,1 + h13
h14 = 0.1185746563 kJ/kg + 213.67 kJ/kg
h14 = 213.7885747 kJ/kg
Statepoint 14’
𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝,1
np = 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝,1'
where np = 0.84
0.1185746563 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
Wpump,1’ = 0.84
Wpump,1’ =0.1411603052 kJ/kg
Solving for h14’
h14’ = Wpump,1’ + h13
h14’ = 0.1411603052 kJ/kg + 213.67 kJ/kg
h14’ = 213.8111603 kJ/kg
Statepoint 15
P15 = 0.1300992063 MPa
113
At 1.484554712 MPa
P (MPa) hf (kJ/kg) sf (kJ/kg-K) vf (m3/kg)
0.13 449.15 1.3867 0.0010492
0.1300992063 449.2428571 1.386944048 0.001049217857
0.135 453.83 1.399 0.0010501
h15 = hf15 = 449.2428571 kJ/kg
v15 = vf15 = .001049217857 m3/kg
s15 = sf15 = 1.386944048 kJ/kg - K
Statepoint 16
The work of the condenser pump should be solved first using the formula Wpump,2
Wpump,2 = vf15 (P16 - P15)
Wpump,2 =001049217857 m3/kg (16,500 - 130.0992063) kPa
Wpump,2 =17.17559223 kJ/kg
Solving for h16
h16 = Wpump,2 + h15
h16 =17.17559223 kJ/kg + 449.2428571 kJ/kg
h16 = 466.4184494 kJ/kg
Statepoint 16’
𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝,2
np = 𝑊𝑝𝑢𝑚𝑝,2'
114
where np = 0.84
17.17559223 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
Wpump,2’ = 0.84
Wpump,2’ = 20.44713361 kJ/kg
Solving for h16’
h16’ = Wpump,2’ + h15
h16’ = 20.44713361 kJ/kg + 449.2428571 kJ/kg
h16’ = 469.6899908 kJ/kg
Solving for y
ℎ15 − ℎ14'
y= ℎ11 − ℎ14'
(449.2428571− 213.8111603) 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔

y= (2687.13373 − 213.8111603) 𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
y = 0.09518843183
Solving for Work of Turbine
Wt = (h8 + h10) - [( yh11 + (1-y) h12 + h9]
Wt = (3528.55 + 3635.85 ) kJ/kg - [( 0.09518843183 x 2687.13373 + (1-
0.09518843183 ) 2338.559085 + 3119.703817 ] kJ/kg
Wt = 1672.956824 kJ/kg
Solving for Actual Work of Turbine
𝑊𝑡'
nt = 𝑊𝑡
where nt = 0.9
Wt’ = nt x Wt
Wt’ = 0.9 x 1672.956824kJ/kg
Wt’ =1505.661142 kJ/kg
115
Solving for the Net Work Output, Wnet
Wnet = Wt’ - (Wpump,1’ + Wpump,2’ )
Wnet = 1505.661142 kJ/kg - (0.1411603052 kJ/kg + 20.44713361 ) kJ/kg
Wnet = 1485.072848 kJ/kg
Mass Balance and Energy Balance
𝐸𝑃
ηg = 𝐵𝑃
𝐸𝑃
BP = η𝑔
1000 𝑘𝑊 1 𝑘𝐽/𝑠
155 𝑀𝑊 ( )( )
BP = 1 𝑀𝑊
0.985
1 𝑘𝑊
BP = 157360.4061 kJ/s
Solving for the mass of steam, ms

157360.4061 𝑘𝐽/𝑠 − 133880.8674 𝑘𝐽/𝑠 −

ms = 1485.072848𝑘𝐽/𝑘𝑔
ms = 42.38456216 kg/s
At High Pressure Turbine
Figure 50. Control Volume at Steam High Pressure Turbine for Design Option 3
116
Eout = Ein
WHPT+ msh9 = msh8
Solving for Work of High Pressure Turbine, WHPT
WHPT = ms(h8 - h9)
WHPT = 42.38456216 kg/s (3528.55 - 3119.703817) kJ/kg
WHPT =17,328.76646 kW
At Low Pressure Turbine
Figure 51. Control Volume at Steam Low Pressure Turbine for Design Option 3
Eout = Ein
WLPT+ ms[yh11 + (1-y)h12] = msh10
Solving for Work of Low Pressure Turbine, WLPT
WLPT = msh10 - ms[yh11 + (1-y)h12]
WLPT = 42.38456216 kg/s (3635.85 kJ/kg) - 42.38456216 kg/s [0.09518843183
(3077.894383 ) + (1- 0.09518843183 ) 2338.559085] kJ/kg
WLPT = 53578.77605 kW
Solving for Work of Turbine, Wt
Wt = WHPT + WLPT
117
Wt = 17,328.76646 kW + 53578.77605 kW
Wt = 70,907.54251 kW
Wt’ = 42.38456216 kg/s (1505.661142 kJ/kg)
Wt’ = 63,816.78826 kW
At Pump I
Figure 52. Control Volume at Pump I for Design Option 3

Eout = Ein
msh14’ = Wpump,1’ + msh13
Wpump,1’ = ms (h14’’- h13)
Wpump,1’ = 42.38456216 kg/s (213.8111603 - 213.67 ) kJ/kg
Wpump,1’ = 5.983017729 kW
At Pump II
Figure 53. Control Volume at Pump II for Design Option 3
118
Eout = Ein
msh16’ = Wpump,2’ + msh15
Wpump,2’ = ms (h16’- h15’)
Wpump,2’ = 42.38456216 kg/s (469.6899908 - 449.2428571 ) kJ/kg
Wpump,2’ =866.6428054 kW
Thus,
Wpump’ = Wpump,1’ + Wpump,2’
Wpump’ = 5.983017729 kW + 866.6428054kW
Wpump’ =872.6258231 kW
At HRSG

Eout = Ein
msh8 + m8h10 = Qin + msh9+ msh16’
Qin = ms [(h8 + h10) - (h9 + h16’)]
Qin = 42.38456216 kg/s [(3528.55 + 3635.85) - (3119.703817 + 469.6899908)]
kJ/kg
Qin = 151,525.0722 kW
119
At Condenser

Eout = Ein
Qout + msh13 = ms[(1-y)h9]
Solving for Head Rejected, Qou
Qout =ms [(1-y)(h9 - h13 ) ]
Qout = 42.38456216 kg/s [ (1-0.09518843183 )(3119.703817 - 213.67) kJ/kg
Qout =81,489.58597kW
Wnet = (63,816.78826 kW - 872.6258231 kW
Wnet = 62944.16244 kW
𝑊𝑛𝑒𝑡
nth = 𝑄𝑖𝑛
x 100 %
62,944.16244 𝑘𝑊
nth = 151,525.0722 𝑘𝑊
x 100 %
nth = 41.54042729 %
The calculated thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle is approximately 41.54%,
which exceeds a little the range of 20-40% as typical values of efficiencies for steam
cycles. (Boyce, 2002)
120
Table 31
Parameter Value
872.6258321 kW, 63,816.78826 kW, 62,944.16244 kW, and 41.54042729 %.
Combined Cycle
Wnet, total = 94,416.24365kW + 62,944.16244kW
Wnet, total = 157,360.4061 kW
x 100 %
157360.4061 𝑘𝑊
nth1 = 269,515.7859 𝑘𝑊
x 100 %
121
nth1 = 58.3863411 %
efficiency of 58.3863411 % which is close to the range.
Table 32
Parameter Value
follows: 157,360.4061 kW and 58.3863411 %.
Description of the Process
For a clear understanding of the systems proposed, discussed below are the
detailed processes for each design option, in accordance with their cycle and
Temperature-entropy (T-s) diagrams. The three design options have the same working
principle, but differ in the number of components included in each system.
Design Option 1
Shown in the following diagrams are the cycle and T-s diagrams for a simple
combined steam and gas cycle which accounts as design option 1.
122
Figure 56. Cycle Diagram for Design Option 1
Figure 57. T-s Diagram for Design Option 1
Figures 56 and 57 reflect the design option 1, which consists of a simple gas
turbine cycle and simple steam turbine cycle. There are nine state points included in this
cycle, wherein state points 1 to 5 are for the gas turbine cycle and 6 to 9 for the steam
123
turbine. The components for the gas cycle are compressor, combustion chamber and the
gas turbine. The process starts with the air being compressed isentropically in the air
compressor. This process occurs on the state point 1-2. Furthermore, the fuel is injected
and burned using the compressed air in the combustion chamber to raise the temperature.
This process on the state point 2-3 is isobaric combustion where pressure remains
constant. Then, the high temperature gas enables the turbine to rotate and generate
electricity which results in the isentropic expansion occurring on state point 3-4. State
point 3-4 is the heat rejection process of the gas cycle.
In connection with the gas cycle, its extracted gas will be fed into the heat
recovery steam generator (HRSG) as shown on the state point 5. The simple steam cycle
consists of a pump, HRSG boiler, steam turbine and a condenser. State point 8-9 occurs
on the pump where the water is pumped on the boiler. Then the boiler will transform the
water into steam at state point 9-6 which is utilized to turn the turbine blades and generate
the electricity. This isentropic expansion of the steam occurs on state point 6-7. The
steam will cool down in the condenser at state point 7-8.
Design Option 2
Presented in the following diagrams are the cycle and T-s diagrams for a
combined cycle with simple gas cycle and single-stage reheat cycle, denoted as the
second design option.
124
On the other hand, Figures 58 and 59 account for design option 2 that includes a
simple gas turbine cycle and a single-stage reheat steam turbine. The combined cycle
consists of 11 state points, with state points 1-5 for the simple gas turbine and 6 to 11 for
the single-stage reheat steam turbine. Compressor, combustion chamber, and gas turbine
125
make up the gas turbine cycle. Similar to the first design alternative, the process starts in
the air compressor where air is compressed isentropically. This procedure takes place in
states 1-2. Moreover, the compressed air in the combustion chamber is used to inject and
burn the fuel, increasing the temperature. Also known as isobaric combustion, this
process occurs at state points 2-3 and pressure is maintained throughout. On the other
hand, isentropic expansion then takes place on state points 3–4, which is caused by the
high temperature gas allowing the turbine to rotate and produce electricity. The heat
rejection phase of the gas cycle is described in state points 3–4, whereas the cycle will
extract the gas and use it to power the HRSG, which is seen in state point 5.
Meanwhile, the steam turbine consists of a pump, condenser, HRSG boiler as well
as high and low pressure turbines. The single-stage reheat steam turbine cycle starts when
the steam enters the high pressure turbine and then expands isentropically, state point 6-7,
for reheating, state point 7-8 then the steam will enter the low pressure turbine. After the
expansion the steam will be condensed in the condenser, state point 9-10 then the pump
will push the water in the boiler at state point 10-11 then the cycle continues.
Design Option 3
Presented in the following diagrams are the cycle and T-s diagrams for a
combined cycle with a single-stage reheat gas cycle and single-stage reheat-regenerative
cycle, denoted as the last design option.
126
For the last design option, it consists of a single-stage reheat gas turbine cycle and
single reheat and regenerative steam turbine cycle, as shown in Figures 60 and 61. The
combined cycle has 16 state points, with state points 1-7 for single reheat gas turbines
and 8-16 for the single reheat and regenerative steam turbine cycle. The single reheat gas
turbine cycle includes compressor, combustion chamber, gas turbines and reheater. The
gas turbine cycle starts at state point 1-2 where the air is isentropically compressed in the
127
compression. Right after, the compressed air is utilized to burn the fuel injected at the
combustion chamber at state point 2-3 where isobaric combustion occurs. For state point
3-4, isentropic expansion takes place then the gas is reheated, state point 4-5 then
expands isentropically, state point 5-6. The gas is then extracted into the HRSG boiler at
state point 7.
Meanwhile, the steam turbine is composed of a heat recovery steam generator
boiler (HRSG), Two stage turbine,the high and the low pressure turbine, condenser and
two pumps. The single reheat and single regenerative steam turbine cycle starts at state
point 8-9 where the steam enters the turbine and expands isentropically before reheating.
The steam enters the HRSG boiler for reheating at state point 9-10. Then the reheated
steam expands isentropically at state points 10-11 and 11-12. However at state point 11,
the steam is extracted by an open feedwater heater. The steam is condensed in the
condenser at state point 12-13. The feed pump I is at state point 13-14 and the feed pump
II which connects the open feedwater heater that the steam at state point 11 enters is at
state point 15-16 which pushes the liquid back in the HRSG boiler.
Summary of Equipment Selection
Upon performing all the calculations necessary for designing the combined steam
and gas cycle power plant, the resulting parameters have been the basis for selecting the
appropriate equipment from various catalogs and manufacturers. This section shows the
tabulated summary of equipment selection for the three design alternatives.
Table 33 presents the summary of equipment for design option 1. This includes
the equipment, manufacturer, selection parameters, and specifications for gas turbine, air
compressor, condenser, feed pump, HRSG, steam turbine, as well as gas and steam
128
generators. The equipment manufacturers for this design option are Siemens, GE Gas
Power, Sulzer, and Thermax. Whereas, the selection parameters are power output,
exhaust and inlet pressures and temperatures, capacity, efficiency, and discharge pressure.
Table 33
Summary of Equipment for Design Option 1
Equipment Manufacturer Selection Specification Catalog

Parameter
Gas Siemens Power Model:

Turbine Output: 117 SGT6-2000E
MW Power Output:
Exhaust 117 MW
Temperature Frequency: 60
: 532°C Hz
Pressure
Ratio: 12:1
Exhaust Mass
Flow: 368 kg/s
Exhaust
Temperature:
532°C
Air Siemens Discharge Impeller

Compressor Pressure: up Diameter: 225
to 10 MPa mm to 1900
mm
Discharge
Pressure: up to
10 MPa
Speed: 22,000
rpm
Condenser GE Gas Power Power Type: Surface

Range: Condensers
From (Water-Cooled)
50MW up to Power Range:
largest From 50MW up
steam to largest steam
turbine turbine output
output Surface Area:
3,000 m2 to
129
35,000 m2
Tube Length:
Up to 18m
Feed Pump Sulzer Pressure: Up Model: MBN

to 10 MPa Capacity: Up
Temperature to m3/h
: 214°C Heads: Up to
900 m
Pressures: Up
to 10 MPa
Temperature:
215°C
HRSG Thermax Capacity: Capacity: Gas

Gas turbine turbine size of
size of 90-320 MW
90-320 MW Pressure: Up to
Temperature 175 kg/cm2
: Up to Temperature:
603°C Up to 603°C
Steam Siemens Power Model:

Turbine Output: up SST-500
to 100 MW Power Output:
Inlet up to 100 MW
Pressure: Up Speed: Up to
to 3 MPa 15,000 rpm
Inlet Pressure:
Up to 3 MPa
Inlet
Temperature:
Up to 400°C
Gas Siemens Apparent Model:

Generator Power: SGen-1000A
180-370 Frequency: 50
MVA Hz
Efficiency: Apparent
Up to 98.9% Power:
180-370 MVA
Efficiency: Up
to 98.9%
Terminal
Voltage:
130
10.5-20 kV
Steam Siemens Apparent Model:

MVA Hz
Up to 98.5% Power: 25-180
MVA
Efficiency: Up
to 98.5%
Terminal
Voltage:
6.3-15.75 kV
Table 33 presents the equipment selection for design option 2. This includes the
equipment, manufacturer, selection parameters, and specifications for gas turbine, air
compressor, condenser, feed pump, HRSG, steam turbine, gas generator and steam
generator. The equipment manufacturers for this design option are Siemens, GE Gas
Power, Sulzer, and Thermax, whereas various parameters were set as independent
variables in choosing from the catalogue.
Table 34
Equipment Manufacturer Selection Specification Catalog

Parameter
Gas Turbine Siemens Power Model:

Output: 117 SGT6-2000E
MW Power Output:
Exhaust 117 MW
Temperature Frequency: 60
: 532°C Hz
Exhaust Mass
Flow: 368 kg/s
Exhaust
Temperature:
131
532°C

to 10 MPa mm to 1900 mm
Volume Flows:
250 to 600,000
m3/h
Discharge
Pressure: up to
10 MPa
Speed: 22,000
rpm

Range: From Condensers
50MW up to (Water-Cooled)
largest steam Power Range:
turbine From 50MW up
output to largest steam
turbine output
Surface Area:
3,000 m2 to
35,000 m2
Tube Length: Up
to 18m
Feed Pump Sulzer Pressures: Model: MBN

Up to 10 Capacity: Up to
MPa m3/h
Temperature Heads: Up to 900
: 214°C m
Pressures: Up to
10 MPa
Temperature:
215°C

size of 320 320 MW
MW Pressure: Up to
Temperature 175 kg/cm2
: Up to Temperature:
603°C Up to 603°C
Steam Siemens Power Model: MST080
132
Turbine Output: Power Output:
25-75 MW 25-75 MW
Inlet Speed: Up to
Pressure: Up 13,200 rpm
to 14 MPa Inlet Pressure:
Up to 14 MPa
Inlet
Temperature:
Up to 540°C

MVA Hz
Up to 98.9% Power: 180-370
MVA
Efficiency: Up to
98.9%
Terminal
Voltage: 10.5-20
kV

25-180 MVA Frequency: 50
Efficiency: Hz
Up to 98.5% Apparent
Power: 25-180
MVA
Efficiency: Up to
98.5%
Terminal
Voltage:
6.3-15.75 kV
Table 35 displays the summary of equipment for the last design option. This
includes the equipment, manufacturer, selection parameters, and specifications for gas
turbine, air compressor, condenser, feed pump, HRSG, steam turbine, as well as gas and
steam generators. Similar to the first two design alternatives, the equipment
133
manufacturers of every component are listed: Siemens, GE Gas Power, Sulzer, and
Thermax.
Table 35
Equipment Manufacturer Selection Specification

Parameter
Gas Turbine Siemens Power Model:

Output: 117 SGT-2000E
MW Power Output:
Exhaust 117 MW
Temperatur Frequency: 50
e: 536°C Hz
Exhaust Mass
Flow: 558 kg/s
Exhaust
Temperature:
536°C

to 10 MPa mm to 1900
mm
Volume Flows:
250 to 600,000
m3/h
Discharge
Pressure: up to
10 MPa
Speed: 22,000
rpm

Range: Condensers
From (Water-Cooled)
50MW up Power Range:
to largest From 50MW up
steam to largest steam
turbine turbine output
output Surface Area:
3,000 m2 to
35,000 m2
134
Tube Length:
Up to 18m
Feed Pump Sulzer Pressures: Model: MBN

Up to 10 Capacity: Up to
MPa m3/h
Temperatur Heads: Up to
e: 214°C 900 m
Pressures: Up
to 10 MPa
Temperature:
215°C

size of 90- 90-320 MW
320 MW Pressure: Up to
Temperatur 175 kg/cm2
e: Up to Temperature:
603°C Up to 603°C
Low Siemens Power Model:

Pressure Output: up SST-500
Steam to 100 MW Power Output:
Turbine Inlet up to 100 MW
Pressure: Speed: Up to
Up to 4.5 15,000 rpm
MPa Inlet Pressure:
Up to 4.5 Mpa
Inlet
Temperature:
Up to 585°C

MVA Hz
Up to Power: 180-370
98.9% MVA
Efficiency: Up
to 98.9%
Terminal
Voltage:
10.5-20 kV
135
MVA Hz
Up to Power: 25-180
98.5% MVA
Efficiency: Up
to 98.5%
Terminal
Voltage:
6.3-15.75 kV
Plant Design Specification and Layout
Upon performing the calculations and selecting the appropriate equipment from
catalogues, a plant layout was established for the proposed combined gas and steam
power plant. Along with the main plant layout are the ancillary buildings that play an
important role to the plant itself. Shown in Figure 62 is the plant layout in its isometric
view.
Figure 62. Combined Cycle Power Plant Layout in Isometric View
136
As seen in the figure above, the 3D visualization of the proposed power plant was
created with the software application SketchUp 2022. The planned project is situated on a
65,054.50 square meter site. It consists of many facilities such as the office, fire station,
warehouse, maintenance, control room, and numerous components utilized in the
combined cycle power plant.
As such, the plant layout in its top view is presented in Figure 63, with labels for
the corresponding facilities.
Figure 63. Combined Cycle Power Plant Layout in Top View
Illustrated in Figure 63 is the layout of the combined cycle power plant in its top
perspective. In line with this, listed below are the facilities included as well as their
corresponding sizes and descriptions.
137
1. Parking area
A facility where the transport vehicles of the employees and visitors can be
situated. Furthermore, it is located right after the entrance of the power plant which
makes it accessible. The parking area lies inside the vicinity, making the vehicles safe.
2. Guard House
The center of security of the proposed power plant is the guard house, which also
serves as the lounge for the guards after their duty. Also, there are security cameras
installed in this facility which are monitored daily. The area covered by the guard house
is 6 meters by 10.5 meters, with a total area of 63 square meters.
3. Clinic and Canteen
The safety and satisfaction of the employees are also considered in making the
proposed design of this power plant. This location of the facility is accessible for every
office and building in the proposed design of the power plant, with a measurement of 10
meters by 7.5 meters, with a total area of 75 square meters.
4. Office
The office or offices for general administration is also considered in the design of
the proposed power plant. This is where the executive offices,meeting place or office for
the investors and shareholders are located here, that has the dimensions of 8 meters long
and 7.5 meters wide.
5. Fire Station
Fire stations are also included in the proposed design of this power plant. This
facility will ensure the safety of the workers if an emergency happens on the power plant.
Moreover, the fire station is also responsible for the fire prevention program for the
138
power plant, where the risk of having a fire accident will be minimized. This facility, of
56 square meter area, is located near the power plant operation which makes it accessible
when an accident happens.
6. Warehouse
The warehouse is the facility where the storage of the raw materials happens. It is
responsible for accepting the materials that will be used in the powerplant and ensuring
its quality while storing before using those materials. In line with this, the area for the
warehouse is 8 meters long and 7 meters wide.
7. Maintenance Department
This facility is in charge of maintenance, which includes checking, sustaining,
fixing, and installing machinery, industrial equipment, and other assets that support
power plant operations. Every piece of equipment in a power plant plays an important
role in meeting performance objectives and supporting the plant's workflow. In addition,
equipment maintenance is a top priority, as equipment failure can have disastrous
consequences ranging from decreased plant output to full-fledged outages. As such, this
area covers 6.5 meters by 7.5 meters, with a total area of 48.75 square meters.
8. Control Room Operator
This facility, 8 meters long and 7.5 meters wide, monitors all plant activities to
guarantee that everything is in good condition. It is in charge of the generation and
distribution of electricity from power plants to businesses, homes, and factories. To sum
up, the control room is a room for troubleshooting if something is wrong within the
system. The thermal scanners and other measuring equipment are recorded with this
facility.
139
9. Generator
This part of the proposed design of the power plant is where the conversion of the
mechanical energy into electricity. This facility includes the generator which is a main
component of the power plant. Two generators are proposed in the design, which is one
for the steam and another for the gas cycle.
10. Combined Cycle Power Plant
The most significant part of the power plant is the combined cycle power plant.
This is the system that creates the mechanical energy that is passed by the generator.
Furthermore, several pieces of equipment are included in this cycle. This combined cycle
utilizes both gas turbine cycle and steam turbine cycle to increase the power plants
efficiency.
11. Transmission Substation
This facility, of a half-acre in area, is responsible for the transmission of
electricity on its designated substation or receives power from a nearby generating station
and uses a large power transformer to boost the power output for transport to different
areas.
140
CHAPTER III
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
This chapter presents the economic analysis of the design taking into account the
computation of capital expenditures, operating expenditures, and the total project cost. In
relation to this, the power demand analysis will be shown as well as the sensitivity
analysis, considering the economic indicators such as the net present value, payback
period, and rate of return on investment. Hence, this chapter determines the economic
aspect of the proposed combined steam and gas power plant.
Power Demand Analysis
As discussed in the previous chapter, the load demand projection for 15 years has
been tabulated below. The load demand comes from the data gathered from QUEZELCO
I, with an increased percentage rate of 6.85% annually, for a straight line method.
Table 36
Year Average Load (MW) Peak Demand Load (MW)
2020 34978.03133 37.17
2021 36726.93289 41.25
2022 38563.27954 40.01
2023 40491.44351 42.75
2024 42516.01569 45.68
2025 44641.81647 48.81
2026 46873.9073 52.16
2027 49217.60266 55.73
2028 51678.48279 59.55
141
Table 36 (Continue)
2029 54262.40693 63.63
2030 56975.52728 67.98
2031 59824.30365 72.64
2032 62815.51883 77.62
2033 65956.29477 82.93
2034 69254.10951 88.61
2035 72716.81498 94.68
2036 76352.65573 101.17
2037 80170.28852 108.10
2038 84178.80294 115.51
Table 36 shows the projected load until the year 2038. The projected load for the
following 15 years is anticipated to reach a maximum value of 115.51 MW from the
actual peak load demand of 42.75 MW for the year 2023.
A predicted load estimate of 115.51 MW is for the next fifteen years, as of 2038.
From an average demand and peak demand of 84.78MW and 115.51 MW, respectively,
the load factor is calculated as follows:
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
Load factor = 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
84.17880294 𝑀𝑊
Load factor = 115.51 𝑀𝑊
Load factor = 0.7287577088
The load factor estimates up to 0.7288 or 72.88 percent. This denotes an average
value for a load factor which has a significant effect on the cost per unit generated by a
142
consumer. On the other hand, for an average demand of 84.78 MW and a plant capacity
of 155 MW, the plant capacity factor may be calculated. Hence:
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑
Plant capacity factor = 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
84.17880294 𝑀𝑊
Plant capacity factor = 155 𝑀𝑊
Plant capacity factor = 0.5430890512
The plant capacity factor obtained was 0.5431 or roughly 54.31%. This shows the
ratio of the average demand or the actual capacity generated for a particular period of
time to the maximum capacity the plant can deliver, in this case, is 155 MW. Thus, a
factor of more than half is a good thing especially that it is connected to the load factor
which causes a significant effect to the consumption cost paid by the customers. Overall,
the load and capacity factor were determined as they will be utilized for the economic
analysis of the plant considering some indicators.
Capital Expenditures
First in line is the calculation of the capital expenditures, which refers to the
several expenses associated with building a combined steam and gas turbine power plant
system. It is the sum of money spent on the project's entire operation, including the cost
of the land, the cost of the equipment, the cost of the building, the cost of the
construction, the cost of the physical labor, and other fees. All the currencies are set in
US Dollars ($).
I. Land Cost
This part will discuss the land cost for a 155 MW combined cycle power plant
with a land area of 65,075 square meters, which will be constructed in Brgy. Bacon,
Ibaba, General Quezon. It is important to have an idea on how much land costs per square
143
meter in the said vicinity to determine whether the price is justifiable or not. In line with
this, all the design options will have the same measurement and price of land.
A. Land Area Cost
According to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), under the Revenue District
Office (RDO No. 61) for Department Order (DO 037-2022), the cost of land per square
meter for an area specified as CR or commercial is Php1,100 or $20.26. In this case, for a
land area of 65,075 m2, the total land area cost is $1,318,419.50.
Solving for the land area cost:
Land Area Cost = area in m2 x cost per m2
Land Area Cost = 65,075 x $20.26
Land Area Cost = $1,318,419.50
B. Land Tax
Meanwhile, Seabury (2020) stated that property taxes, particularly land, can be
obtained by using the value of the property multiplied to its corresponding rate. In terms
of the rate of tax applied to the cost of land area, the typical value is 2% if the location is
in the vicinity of Metro Manila and 1% in provinces, according to the Property Tax
Reform of the Department of Finance (2013). Since the location lies outside Metro
Manila, the design will utilize 1% for land tax.
Solving for the land tax:
Land Tax = Land Tax Rate x Land Area Cost
Land Tax = 0.01 x $1,318,419.5
Land Tax = $13,184.195
With this, shown in Table 37 is the total land cost for design options 1,2, and 3.
144
Table 37
Total Land Cost
Description Rate Price ($) Total Price ($)
Land Area Cost 65,075 20.26 1,318,419.5
Land Tax 0.01 1,318,419.5 13,184.195
TOTAL LAND COST ($) 1,331,603.695
The land cost for the 155 MW combined cycle power plant at Brgy Bacong Ibaba,
General Luna, Quezon is presented in the table above. This includes the rate, price, and
total price for land area cost and land tax. Adding the total price for land area cost and
land tax results in a computed total land cost of $1,331,603.695.
II. Equipment Cost
This section will discuss the estimated costs of each piece of equipment utilized in
the three design options for combined cycle power plant with a 155 MW capacity. The
model and quantity of each piece of equipment from manufacturer’s guide and online
markets were used to estimate its price. Shown in the table below is the summary of the
cost of each piece of equipment in terms of quantity and unit price for design option 1.
Table 38
Mechanical Equipment Costs for Design Option 1
Equipment Quantity Price ($) Total Price ($)
Gas Turbine 1 58,000,000 58,000,000
Gas Turbine Generator 1 4,312,500 4,312,500
Heat Recovery Steam 1 7,000,000 7,000,000

Generator
145
Table 38 (Continue)
Steam Turbine 1 45,500,500 45,500,000
Steam Generator 1 7,475,000 7,475,000
Condenser 1 305,000 305,000
Feed Pump 1 30,000 30,000
Cooling Tower 1 200,000 200,000
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST ($) 122,822,500
The mechanical equipment costs for design option 1 for the 155 MW combined
power plant at Brgy Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon is shown in Table 38. This
contains the equipment, quantity, price, and total price for each piece of equipment. The
total equipment cost for design option 1 is $122,822,500.
Meanwhile, shown in Table 39 are the mechanical equipment costs for the second
design option.
Table 39
Gas Turbine 1 58,000,000 58,000,000

Generator
Steam Turbine 1 70,000,000 70,000,000
Steam Generator 1 7,475,000 7,475,000
146
Table 39 (Continue)
Condenser 1 305,000 305,000
Feed Pump 1 30,000 30,000
Cooling Tower 1 200,000 200,000
The cost of the mechanical equipment for the 155 MW combined power plant at
Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon for design option 2 is shown in the table. It
also contains the equipment, quantity, cost, and total cost of the equipment utilized in the
design option 2. Due to the different model equipment that is used, design option 2 is
more expensive than option 1 in terms of overall equipment cost at $147,322,500.
On the other hand, the equipment costs for design option 3 is presented in the
table below.
Table 40
Gas Turbine 2 58,000,000 116,000,000

Generator
Steam Turbine 1 70,000,000 70,000,000
Steam Generator 1 7,475,000 7,475,000
Condenser 1 305,000 305,000
147
Table 40 (Continue)
Feed Pump 2 30,000 60,000
Open Feedwater Heater 1 5,000 5,000
Cooling Tower 1 200,000 200,000
The table summarizes the cost of the mechanical components of design option 3
for the 155 MW combined power plant at Brgy Bacong Ibaba,General Luna, Quezon.
Also, it shows the equipment utilized in design option 3 along with its quantity, pricing,
and overall cost. The design option 3 is the most expensive out of the design options in
terms of the overall cost of the equipment because of the different models of equipment
and its quantity, expected to cost $205,357,500.
III. Direct Building Cost
The direct building cost for the 155 MW combined power plant will be presented
in this section, which refers to the expenses faced by a company that are directly related
to the development of a good or the delivery of a service. This includes the cost of the
building facility as well as piping, electrical, instrumentation, equipment installation, and
other miscellaneous costs. However, the basis for determining the building cost is the
total equipment cost, whereas the percentage for each part was based on the Kolmetz
Handbook of Process Equipment Design by Kolmetz and Sari (2014).
A. Building Facility
The first aspect is cost for building the facility, where it is stated that the range of
percentage share is around 3-18%. In this case, the design utilizes the maximum of 18%.
148
The following presents the calculation of building facility costs for each design
alternative.
For Design Option 1:
Building Facility Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Building Facility Cost = 0.18 x $122,822,500
Building Facility Cost = $22,108,050.00
B. Piping Cost
Piping refers to the process of constructing pipes that transports fluids from one
location to another. It is a must to consider the interconnection of these pipes since it also
contributes to the cost of construction for the power plant. Costs associated with piping
include labor, valves, fittings, pipe supports, and other expenses for the construction of all
pipework are immediately utilized in the process. The price of piping also depends on the
method involved, estimates of the amounts could range from 16-66% of the purchasing
price for equipment. Hence, this design utilizes a 16% allotted budget for the piping cost.
149
Piping Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Piping Cost = 0.16 x $122,822,500.00
Piping Cost = $19,651,600.00
Piping Cost = 0.16 x $147,322,500
Piping Cost = $23,571,600
Piping Cost = 0.16 x $205,357,500
Piping Cost = $32,857,200
C. Electrical Cost
Even if a power plant generates electricity to be distributed to the customers, it
will not be operated without electricity. This creates an impact on the costs paid by the
consumers and also accounts for the total capital expenses, which is 10% of the total
equipment cost.
Electrical Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Electrical Cost = 0.1 x $122,822,500.00
Electrical Cost = $12,282,250.00
150
Electrical Cost = 0.1 x $147,322,500
Electrical Cost = $14,732,250
Electrical Cost = 0.1 x $205,357,500
Electrical Cost = $20,535,750
D. Instrumentation Cost
Another part of the capital expenses is instrumentation, consisting of both
instruments and any other necessary accessories for the whole system. These factors are
necessary for automatic controls that are implemented in equipment. Instrumentation
costs can be computed as similar percentages from the acquired equipment, in this case,
is 15%.
Instrumentation Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Instrumentation Cost = 0.15 x $122,822,500.00
Instrumentation Cost = $18,423,375.00
Instrumentation Cost = $22,098,375.00
151
Instrumentation Cost = $30,803,625
E. Equipment Installation Cost
According to assessments of the total installed costs of equipment in several
typical plants, depending on the complexity of the equipment and the kind of plant in
which it is set, the cost of installing process equipment may be around 43%. Hence, this
design used 11% for material and labor of platforms and supports.
Equipment Installation Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Equipment Installation Cost = 0.11 x $122,822,500.00
Equipment Installation Cost = $13,510,475.00
Equipment Installation Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Equipment Installation Cost = 0.11 x $147,322,500
Equipment Installation Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cst
Equipment Installation Cost = 0.11 x $205,357,500
F. Miscellaneous Cost
This part involves any supplemental supplies needed to run the plant that are not
covered by the other aspects, such as the building permit. As a result, by specifying and
calculating the costs of all required goods, an exact estimate can be created. In this
instance, 10% of the equipment cost is composed of a variety of materials.
152
Miscellaneous Cost = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Miscellaneous Cost = 0.1 x $147,322,500
Miscellaneous Cost = $12,282,250.00
Miscellaneous Cost = 0.1 x $122,822,500.00
Miscellaneous Cost = 0.1 x $205,357,500.00
G. Yard Improvement
The yard improvement should also be taken into consideration when putting up a
power plant. From the handbook for these expenditures, the percentage allotted for the
yard improvement is 5% of the total equipment cost, which differs from all the design
options.
Yard Improvement = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Yard Improvement = 0.05 x $122,822,500.00
Yard Improvement = $6,141,125.00
153
Yard Improvement = 0.05 x $147,322,500
Yard Improvement = 0.05 x $205,357,500
H. Service Facility
Lastly for the direct building costs, the service facility is in-charge of the services
the plant provides. Therefore, this proposed project will have a 14% of service facility.
Service Facility = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Service Facility =0.14 x $122,822,500.00
Service Facility = $17,195,150.00
Service Facility =0.14 x $147,322,500
Service Facility =0.14 x $205,357,500
Upon calculating all the subtopics for the direct building costs, the tables are
provided. For Table 41, the detailed values are presented below.
154
Table 41
Direct Building Cost for Design Option 1
Description Rate Total Equipment Total Price

Cost ($) ($)
Building Facility 0.18 122,822,500 22,108,050
Piping Cost 0.16 122,822,500 19,651,600
Electrical Cost 0.1 122,822,500 12,282,250
Instrumentation Cost 0.15 122,822,500 18,423,375
Equipment Installation 0.11 122,822,500 13,510,475

Cost
Miscellaneous Cost 0.1 122,822,500 12,282,250
Yard Improvement 0.05 122,822,500 6,141,125
Service Facility 0.14 122,822,500 17,195,150
TOTAL DIRECT BUILDING COST ($) 121,594,275
The direct building costs for combined cycle power plants considering design
option 1 are shown in the table. The table also includes the rate, total cost of the
equipment, and total cost for each criteria that must be calculated to determine the
building's total cost. Design Option 1 has a total building cost of $121,594,275.
Whereas, the direct building costs for the second design option is illustrated in
Table 42.
155
Table 42
Description Rate Total Equipment Total Price ($)

Cost ($)
Piping Cost 0.16 147,322,500 23,571,600
Electrical Cost 0.1 147,322,500 14,732,250

Cost
Miscellaneous Cost 0.1 147,322,500 14,732,250
The table summarizes the direct building costs for combined cycle power plants
for design option 2. The rate, total equipment, and total cost for each criteria are also
included in the table. Design option 2 has a higher total equipment cost, which is used to
determine building costs, than design option 1, resulting in a higher building cost of
$145,849,275.
Lastly, the design option 3 will have dissimilar cost as compared to the two
options, hence, the table that summarizes the costs was shown below.
156
Table 43
Description Rate Total Equipment Total Price ($)

Cost ($)
Piping Cost 0.16 205,357,500 32,857,200
Electrical Cost 0.1 205,357,500 20,535,750

Cost
Miscellaneous Cost 0.1 205,357,500 $20,535,750
The direct building costs for combined cycle power plants for design option 3 are
shown in the table. The table also includes the rate, total equipment cost, and total price
for each category. Design option 3 has a higher building cost of $203,303,925 than the
other design options due to its higher total equipment cost.
IV. Indirect Building Cost
This part presents the indirect building costs for the three design options for the
155 MW combined cycle power plant. This includes the engineering and supervision,
contractor’s fee, construction expense,and contingency. Similar to the direct building
157
costs, the total equipment cost serves as the basis for calculating the indirect building
cost.
A. Engineering and Supervision
Building the whole plant will not be completed without the supervision of the
surveyors, inspectors, managers, and project engineers. The skills they possess will help
in constructing a more efficient and durable infrastructure, as conformed to the building
codes and standards. Shown below are the calculations for the engineering and
supervision costs which is 20% of the total equipment cost.
Engineering and Supervision = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Engineering and Supervision = 0.2 x $122,822,500.00
Engineering and Supervision = $24,564,500.00
Engineering and Supervision = 0.15 x $147,322,500
Engineering and Supervision = $22,098,375
Engineering and Supervision = 0.15 x $205,357,500
Engineering and Supervision = $30,803,625
B. Contractor's Fee
The contractor’s fee refers to the payment allotted for the contractor who provides
the services to build the power plant. This includes the profit of the contractor and the
158
payment for overhead costs to control the design and development. In this project, the
contractor’s fee is 9% of the total equipment costs.
Contractors Fee = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Contractors Fee = 0.09 x $122,822,500
Contractors Fee = $11,054,025
C. Construction Expense
This type of expense is involved with the connection of the materials and
equipment to the design, installation, and construction of the combined cycle power
plant. Similar to the contractor’s fee, the expense for the construction is 9% of the total
equipment cost.
Construction Expense = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Construction Expense = 0.09 x $122,822,500
Construction Expense = $11,054,025
159
Construction Expense = $9,575,962.50
Construction Expense = $14,375,025
D. Contingency
The contingency cost is the amount allotted for the payment of miscellaneous or
unforeseen costs during the construction of the plant. The percentage share to the
equipment cost is commonly 5-10%, wherein this design utilizes the maximum which is
10%.
For Design Option 1 :
Contingency = Factor x Total Equipment Cost
Contingency = 0.1 x $122,822,500
Contingency = $12,282,250
Contingency = 0.1 x $147,322,500
160
Contingency = 0.1 x $205,357,500
Upon the completion of indirect building costs for the power plant, the following
tables display the summary of the calculations for each design option. Table 44 presents
the indirect building cost for the first design alternative.
Table 44
Indirect Building Cost for Design Option 1
Description Rate Total Equipment Cost Total Price

($) ($)
Engineering & Supervision 0.2 122,822,500.00 24,564,500.00
Contractor’s Fee 0.09 122,822,500.00 11,054,025.00
Construction Expense 0.09 122,822,500.00 11,054,025.00
Contingency 0.1 122,822,500.00 12,282,250.00
TOTAL INDIRECT BUILDING COST ($) 58,954,800
The table above demonstrates the indirect building costs for the combined cycle
power plant for design option 1. The rate, total equipment cost, and total cost for each set
of criteria that must be determined to establish the total indirect building cost are also
included in the table. Thus, the total indirect building cost for design option 1 is
$58,954,800.
Meanwhile, the table below shows the summary of indirect building cost for
design option 2.
161
Table 45
Description Rate Total Equipment Cost Total Price ($)

($)
Engineering & Supervision 0.15 147,322,500 22,098,375
Contractor’s Fee 0.07 147,322,500 10,312,575
Construction Expense 0.065 147,322,500 9,575,962.50
Contingency 0.1 147,322,500 14,732,250
TOTAL BUILDING COST ($) 56,719,162.50
The indirect building costs for the second design option of the combined cycle
power plant are shown in the table. The table also shows the rate, total equipment cost,
and total cost for each criteria. Design option 2 has a higher indirect building cost of
$56,719,162.50 because it has a higher total equipment cost than design option 1.
Lastly, Table 46 tabulates the indirect building cost for the last design option.
Table 46
Description Rate Total Equipment Cost ($) Total Price ($)
Engineering & Supervision 0.15 205,357,500 30,803,625
Contractor’s Fee 0.07 205,357,500 14,375,025
Construction Expense 0.07 205,357,500 14,375,025
Contingency 0.1 205,357,500 20,535,750
TOTAL BUILDING COST ($) 80,089,425
162
For design option 3, the table displays the direct building costs for combined
cycle power plants. The rate, total equipment cost, and total price for each category are
also included in the table. Due to its more costly total equipment cost, design option 3 has
a higher building cost of $203,303,925 than the other design options.
Total Capital Expenditure
The total capital expenditure costs for the 155 MW combined power plant at
Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon are discussed in this section. This refers to
the total cost that contributes in determining the overall profitability of the power plant.
Included in this part are the total price of the equipment cost, land cost, direct building
cost, and the indirect building cost.
Table 47 presents the total capital expenditures for the design option 1.
Table 47
Total Capital Expenditure for Design Option 1
Description Total Price ($)
Equipment Cost 122,822,500.00
Land Cost 1,331,603.70
Direct Building Cost 121,594,275.00
Indirect Building Cost 58,954,800.00
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE COST ($) 304,703,178.70
The total capital expenditure cost for the first design option is shown in a table.
Considering the total costs for equipment, land, direct building, and indirect building
costs results in a computed total capital expenditure cost of $304,703,178.70.
163
On the other hand, the table below displays the total capital expenditure for the
second design alternative.
Table 48
Equipment Cost 147,322,500
Land Cost 1,331,603.70
Direct Building Cost 145,849,275
Indirect Building Cost 56,719,162.50
Table 48 shows the total capital expenditure expenses for design option 2. When
the costs for equipment, land, direct building, and indirect direct building are combined
together, a total capital expenditure cost of $351,222,541.20 is calculated.
For design option 3, Table 49 presents the total capital expenditure.
Table 49
Equipment Cost 205,357,500
Land Cost 1,331,603.70
Direct Building Cost 203,303,925
Indirect Building Cost 80,089,425
164
The table above shows the total capital expenditure costs for design option 3.
Summarizing the costs for the equipment, land, direct building, and indirect building
obtains a total capital expenditure cost of $490,082,453.70.
Operating Expenditure
Operating expenditures refer to the costs incurred during the normal plant
operation of the combined steam and gas turbine power plant system. This includes the
labor cost with salaries for different positions, the miscellaneous cost classified as
maintenance and repair, lubrication, supplies, operating taxes, transportation, and
insurance, as well as the fuel cost since LNG will be the raw material.
I. Labor Cost
The labor cost is the amount of money allocated to the manpower who operates
the plant, directly or indirectly involved in the processes. It is dependent on the number
of personnel as well as the salary on the daily basis and the number of hours they have in
the power plant. In this design, the power plant will operate for 355 continuous days
wherein ten days will be allocated annually for its maintenance. In line with this, the total
number of hours per day for employees is eight, and any hours exceeding this will be
referred to as the overtime work according to the Project Jurisprudence (2019). Hence,
workers will also be present for 355 days, with three shifts for 12:00 am - 8:00 am, 8:00
am to 4:00 pm, and 4:00 pm - 12 mn.Moreover, the salaries on a daily basis was obtained
from the site entitled Salary Experts (n.d.).
A. Plant Manager
By ensuring that rules and regulations are adhered to, the plant manager will be
responsible for managing all daily operations at the facility, including production and
165
manufacturing. Their guidance will help to improve production, quality, safety, and
accountability. There will be three plant managers with a daily wage of $120.75 for all
design options.
Total Cost = No. of Workers x Work Days x Daily Wage
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $120.75
Total Cost = $128,598.75
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $120.75
Total Cost = $128,598.75
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $120.75
Total Cost = $128,598.75
B. Assistant Plant Manager
The control for energy management systems are all managed by assistant plant
managers throughout the facilities. They do relevant work orders into the maintenance
management system under the guidance of the plant manager, then complete or delegate
the task. There will be three assistant plant managers with a daily wage of $57.48.
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $57.48
166
Total Cost = $61,216.20
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $57.48
Total Cost = $61,216.20
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $57.48
Total Cost = $61,216.20
C. Plant Management Technician
The maintenance and repair of the equipment for the power plant is overseen by a
plant management technician. In this project, there will be four plant management
technicians for the first design option and six for design options 2 and 3, with a daily
wage of $28.47.
Total Cost = 4 x 355 x $28.47
Total Cost = $40,427.40
Total Cost = 6 x 355 x $28.47
Total Cost = $60,641.10
167
Total Cost = 6 x 355 x $28.47
Total Cost = $60,641.10
D. Line Supervisor
The line supervisor is in charge of guiding, coordinating, and evaluating the work
of other line personnels as well as the engagement of line crews in electrical line
installation and maintenance. Hence, there will be four line supervisors for the first
design option and six for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of $45.84.
Total Cost = 4 x 355 x $45.84
Total Cost = $65,092.80
Total Cost = 6 x 355 x $45.84
Total Cost = $97,639.20
Total Cost = 6 x 355 x $45.84
Total Cost = $97,639.20
168
E. Operation Manager
Operation managers are in charge of all operational tasks inside an organization.
They oversee quality assurance and train other members to guarantee that everyone
completes their job on time. There will be three operation managers with a daily wage of
$82.97.
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $82.97
Total Cost = $88,363.05
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $82.97
Total Cost = $88,363.05
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $82.97
Total Cost = $88,363.05
F. System Operators
The whole operation of the system is monitored and managed by the system
operator. Also, in order to ensure that the system is in good condition and can operate
regularly, the operator initiates and terminates system tasks, and keeps an eye out for
uncommon conditions. This project will consist of 12 system operators for design options
1 and 2, and 15 for the third design option, with a daily wage of $17.86.
169
Total Cost = 12 x 355 x $17.86
Total Cost = $76,083.60
Total Cost = 12 x 355 x $17.86
Total Cost = $76,083.60
Total Cost = 15 x 355 x $17.86
Total Cost = $95,104.50
G. Logistic Manager
The supply chain must be productive and efficient across the entire firm, which is
managed by the logistics manager. Also, to make sure that supplies are delivered to the
right locations, they organize, store, and oversee the distribution of resources. There will
be three logistics managers with a daily wage of $52.75.
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $52.75
Total Cost = $56,178.75
170
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $52.75
Total Cost = $56,178.75
Total Cost = 3 x 355 x $52.75
Total Cost = $56,178.75
H. Project Supervisor
The project supervisors offer the supervision and guidance for a successful
project. They also assist problem-solving and project resourcing while upholding project
standards. Therefore, there will be four project supervisors for the first design option and
six for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of $33.29.
Total Cost = 4 x 355 x $33.29
Total Cost = $47,271.80
Total Cost = 6 x 355 x $33.29
Total Cost = $70,907.70
Total Cost = 6 x 355 x $33.29
Total Cost = $70,907.70
171
I. Project Engineer
The engineering and technical expertise required to accomplish a project fall
under the supervision of project engineers. They plan projects, establish project criteria,
organize project reviews, and make sure project components are implemented correctly.
This design consists of nine project engineers for design option 1 and ten for design
options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of $63.71.
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $63.71
Total Cost = $203,553.45
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $63.71
Total Cost = $226,170.50
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $63.71
Total Cost = $226,170.50
J. Mechanical Engineer
Mechanical engineers who work in power plants ensure that the equipment, such
as turbines and boilers, are operating at their optimum condition in order for the power to
be continuously produced. In this project, there will be nine mechanical engineers for
design option 1 and ten for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of $55.93.
172
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $55.93
Total Cost = $178,696.35
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $55.93
Total Cost = $198,551.50
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $55.93
Total Cost = $198,551.50
K. Electrical Engineer
The aspects of electric motors, industrial controls, lights systems, generators, and
energy transmission networks are responsibilities of the electrical engineers to which they
design, develop, test, and oversee. In this project, there will be nine electrical engineers
for design option 1 and ten for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of $59.68.
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $59.68
Total Cost = $190,677.60
173
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $59.68
Total Cost = $211,864
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $59.68
L. Maintenance Engineer
The maintenance engineers ensure that the machinery and equipment at the
facility are correctly maintained and functioning. They also oversee the maintenance
program for the building; locate and assess equipment or machinery faults; and
implement corrective measures. In this project, there will be nine maintenance engineers
for design option 1 and ten for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of $32.64.
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $32.64
Total Cost = $104284.80
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $32.64
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $32.64
174
M. Technician
A plant technician maintains and fixes machinery at buildings and industrial
facilities. Some processes involve assembling machinery, installing cables and wiring in
accordance with guidelines, and troubleshooting mechanical and electrical apparatus in
this position. In this project, there will be 12 plant technicians for design options 1 and 2,
and 15 for design option 3, with a daily wage of $34.70.
Total Cost =12 x 355 x $34.7
Total Cost =12 x 355 x $34.7
Total Cost =15 x 355 x $34.7
Total Cost = $184,777.50
N. Safety Engineer
To reduce hazards, specify safety procedures, ensure legal compliance with
occupational health and safety., and implementing rules and regulations are the
responsibilities of health and safety engineers. They describe how to put safety strategies
into place, deal with problems, and prevent accidents. In this project, there will be nine
175
safety engineers for design option 1 and ten for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage
of $60.48.
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $60.48
Total Cost = $193,233.60
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $60.48
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $60.48
O. Environmental Engineer
Reports on environmental investigation are created, reviewed, and updated by
environmental engineers. They ensure that systems such as water treatment and air
pollution control conform with the standards to minimize the contribution of the power
plant to environmental pollution. In this project, there will be nine environmental
engineers for design option 1 and ten for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage of
$50.61.
176
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $50.61
Total Cost = $161,698.95
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $50.61
Total Cost = $179,665.50
Total Cost = 10 x 355 x $50.61
Total Cost = $179,665.50
P. Safety Officer
The safety officers diagnose and fix issues aligned with electrical devices and
control systems, including fire alarms, dryers, freezers, overhead doors, motors, standby
generators, and other appliances. This project will consist of seven safety officers for
design option 1, eight for design option 2, and nine for design option 3, with a daily wage
of $25.76.
Total Cost = 7 x 355 x $25.76
Total Cost = $64,013.60
Total Cost = 8 x 355 x $25.76
177
Total Cost = $73,158.40
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $25.76
Total Cost = $82,303.20
Q. Environmental Officer
The environmental officers are responsible for investigating, inspecting, enforcing
laws and regulations, responding to incidents, performing monitoring, licensing, and
evaluation tasks, and giving technical assistance. This project will consist of seven
environmental officers for design option 1, eight for design option 2, and nine for design
option 3, with a daily wage of $26.97.
Total Cost = 7 x 355 x $26.97
Total Cost = $67,020.45
Total Cost = 8 x 355 x $26.97
Total Cost = $76,594.80
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $26.97
Total Cost = $86,169.15
178
R. Pollution Control Officer
The pollution control officers are in-charge in monitoring the operations of the
plant to make sure they adhere to specified environmental regulatory standards. Also,
they audit the facilities for pollution control. This project will consist of seven pollution
control officers for design option 1, eight for design option 2, and nine for design option
3, with a daily wage of $33.06.
Total Cost = 7 x 355 x $33.06
Total Cost = $82,154.10
Total Cost = 8 x 355 x $33.06
Total Cost = $93,890.40
Total Cost = 9 x 355 x $33.06
Total Cost = $105,626.70
S. Administrator
The administrative tasks carried out by the plant administrators include
communicating and scheduling of meetings, plant tours, meetings, as well as assisting in
general office management. In line with this, the project will consist of seven
179
administrators for design option 1 and eight for design options 2 and 3, with a daily wage
of $24.75.
Total Cost = 7 x 355 x $24.75
Total Cost = $61,503.75
Total Cost = 8 x 355 x $24.75
Total Cost = 8 x 355 x $24.75
Upon calculating the labor cost, the summary was tabulated for each of the design
options as seen below. In accordance with this, Table 50 presents the total labor cost for
design option 1.
Table 50
Total Labor Cost for Design Option 1
Occupation No. of No. of Rate ($) Total Costs

Workers Working Days ($)
Plant Manager 3 355 120.75 128,598.75
180
Table 50 (Continue)
Assistant Plant 3 355 57.48 61,216.2

Manager
Plant Management 4 355 28.47 40,427.4

Technician
Line Supervisor 4 355 45.84 65,092.8
Operation Manager 3 355 82.97 88,363.05
System Operators 12 355 17.86 76,083.6
Logistic Manager 3 355 52.75 56,178.75
Project Supervisor 4 355 33.29 47,271.8
Project Engineer 9 355 63.71 203,553.45
Mechanical Engineer 9 355 55.93 178,696.35
Electrical Engineer 9 355 59.68 190,677.6
Maintenance 9 355 32.64 104,284.8

Engineer
Technician 12 355 34.7 147,822
Safety Engineer 9 355 60.48 193,233.6
Environmental 9 355 50.61 161,698.95

Engineer
Safety Officer 7 355 25.76 64,013.6
Environment Officer 7 355 26.97 67,020.45
Pollution Control 7 355 33.06 82,154.1

Officer
Administrator 7 355 24.75 61,503.75
TOTAL LABOR COST ($) 2,017,891
181
As seen in the table above, for a total of 130 personnels in various positions
working in a span of 355 days, the total labor cost amounts to $2,017,891. Whereas,
Table 51 shows the total labor cost for the second design option.
Table 51
Occupation No. of No. of Working Rate ($) Total Costs

Workers Days ($)
Plant Manager 3 355 120.75 128,598.75
Assistant Plant 3 355 57.48 61,216.2

Manager

Technician
Line Supervisor 6 355 45.84 97,639.2
Mechanical 10 355 55.93 198,551.5

Engineer
Electrical Engineer 10 355 59.68 211,864
Maintenance 10 355 32.64 115,872

Engineer
Technician 12 355 34.7 147,822
Safety Engineer 10 355 60.48 214,704
182
Table 51 (Continue)
Environmental 10 355 50.61 179,665.5

Engineer
Safety Officer 8 355 25.76 73,158.4
Environment 8 355 26.97 76,594.8

Officer

Officer
Administrator 8 355 24.75 70,290
TOTAL LABOR COST ($) 2,248,211.45
As presented in the table above, for a total of 146 staff in various positions
working in a span of 355 days, the total labor cost amounts to $2,248,211.45. Lastly,
Table 52 displays the total labor cost for the third design option.
Table 52
Occupation No. of No. of Working Rate ($) Total Costs ($)

Workers Days
Plant Manager 3 355 120.75 128,598.75
Assistant Plant 3 355 57.48 61,216.2

Manager

Technician
Line Supervisor 6 355 45.84 97,639.2
183
Table 52 (Continue)
Mechanical Engineer 10 355 55.93 198,551.5
Electrical Engineer 10 355 59.68 211,864
Maintenance 10 355 32.64 115,872

Engineer
Technician 15 355 34.7 184,777.5
Safety Engineer 10 355 60.48 214,704
Environmental 10 355 50.61 179,665.5

Engineer
Safety Officer 9 355 25.76 82,303.2
Environment Officer 9 355 26.97 86,169.15

Officer
Administrator 8 355 24.75 70290
TOTAL LABOR COST ($) 2,334,643.30
As seen in the table above, for a total of 155 staff in various positions working in
a span of 355 days, the total labor cost amounts to $2,334,643.30. Compared to the total
labor costs of the other design alternatives, this design option possesses the highest
amount, due to its more complicated process of the power plant system.
184
II. Miscellaneous Cost
This refers to the cost required for the unexpected costs as well as the
miscellaneous materials not covered by other major factors such as building and
construction expenses. Miscellaneous costs include the cost for maintenance and repair,
lubrication, supplies, operating taxes, transportation, and insurance.
A. Maintenance and Repair Cost
This cost will cover the materials and labor costs for plant maintenance and repair.
The percentage share for maintenance and repair cost is 9-10% of the total capital
expenditures.
Total Cost = Factor x Total Capital Expenditures
Total Cost = 0.1 x $304,703,178.70
Total Cost = $30,470,317.87
Total Cost = 0.095 x $351,222,541.20
Total Cost = $33,366,141.41
Total Cost = 0.09 x $490,082,453.70
Total Cost = $44,107,420.83
185
B. Lubrication Cost
The gas turbine and other equipment uses a lubrication system to treat and purify
the circulating oil. Since the combined cycle power plant utilizes a gas plant, it is a must
to have an appropriate budget for the lubrication. In this case, the percentage share of
lubrication cost is 4-5% of the total capital expenditures.
Total Cost = 0.05 x $304,703,178.70
Total Cost = $15,235,158.93
Total Cost = 0.05 x $351,222,541.20
Total Cost = $17,561,127.06
Total Cost = 0.04 x $490,082,453.70
Total Cost = $19,603,298.15
C. Supplies Cost
Supplies cost refers to the money allocated for the supplies necessary to operate
the power plant. In this case, the supplies cost is 6-7.5% of the total capital expenditures.
Total Cost = 0.075 x $304,703,178.70
186
Total Cost = $22,852,738.40
Total Cost = 0.075 x $351,222,541.20
Total Cost = $26,341,690.59
Total Cost = 0.06 x $490,082,453.70
Total Cost = $29,404,947.22
D. Operating Taxes
This cost refers to the local taxes required to be paid by the power plant,
depending on the value of its construction. For a typical range of 1 to 2% of operating
taxes, the project utilizes 2% of the total capital expenditures.
Total Cost = 0.02 x $304,703,178.70
Total Cost = $6,094,063.57
Total Cost = 0.02 x $351,222,541.20
Total Cost = $7,024,450.82
187
Total Cost = 0.02 x $490,082,453.70
Total Cost = $9,801,649.07
E. Transportation Cost
Transportation cost is dependent on the type of product transported to. Liquids
have a small amount of transportation cost compared to the synthetic fibers and other
solids being distributed. In this case, the cost allocated for transportation is 4-7.5% of the
total capital costs.
Total Cost = 0.075 x $304,703,178.70
Total Cost = $22,852,738.40
Total Cost = 0.07 x $351,222,541.20
Total Cost = $24,585,577.88
Total Cost = 0.04 x $490,082,453.70
Total Cost = $19,603,298.15
F. Insurance Cost
A power plant must also allocate money for insurance, as this provides assurance
for the power plant during construction and operation. The annual insurance paid is
commonly between the ranges of 5% - 10% of fixed capital.
188
Total Cost = 0.1 x $304,703,178.70
Total Cost = $30,470,317.87
Total Cost = 0.05 x $351,222,541.20
Total Cost = $17,561,127.06
Total Cost = 0.05 x $490,082,453.70
Total Cost = $24,504,122.68
In accordance with the computations performed for the miscellaneous cost, tables
have been provided below to present the summary. As such, Table 53 shows the total
miscellaneous cost for design option 1.
Table 53
Total Miscellaneous Cost for Design Option 1
Description Factor Total Equipment Total Cost ($)

Cost ($)
Maintenance and Repair 0.1 304,703,178.70 30,470,317.87

Cost
Lubrication Cost 0.05 304,703,178.70 15,235,158.93
Supplies Cost 0.075 304,703,178.70 22,852,738.40
Operating Taxes 0.02 304,703,178.70 6,094,063.57
189
Table 53
Transportation Cost 0.075 304,703,178.70 22,852,738.40
Insurance Cost 0.1 304,703,178.70 30,470,317.87
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COST ($) 127,975,335.05
For a percentage share of 10, 5, 7.5, 2, 7.5, and 10 for the maintenance and repair,
lubrication, supplies, operating taxes, transportation, and insurance, the total
miscellaneous cost amounts to $127,975,335.05.
Meanwhile, the table below illustrates the calculated results for design option 2.
Table 54

Cost ($)
Maintenance and Repair 0.095 351,222,541.20 33,366,141.41

Cost
Supplies Cost 0.075 351,222,541.20 26,341,690.59
Operating Taxes 0.02 351,222,541.20 7,024,450.82
Insurance Cost 0.05 351,222,541.20 17,561,127.06
190
For a percentage share of 9.5, 5, 7.5, 2, 7.5, and 5 for the maintenance and repair,
miscellaneous cost amounts to $126,440,114.83.
Whereas, Table 55 presents the calculated results for the last design option.
Table 55

Cost ($)
Maintenance and Repair Cost 0.09 490,082,453.70 44,107,420.83
Supplies Cost 0.06 490,082,453.70 29,404,947.22
Operating Taxes 0.02 490,082,453.70 9,801,649.07
Insurance Cost
0.05 490,082,453.70 24,504,122.68
For a percentage share of 9.5, 4, 7.5, 2, 7, and 5 for the maintenance and repair,
miscellaneous cost amounts to $147,024,736.11. It is noticed that even though design
option 3 has the lowest percentage share compared to the other options, it still has the
highest amount of miscellaneous cost, as a result of high amount in total capital
expenditures.
191
III. Fuel Cost
For the proposed combined steam and gas power plant, the raw material of the gas
power plant will be the liquefied natural gas (LNG) that is supplied by the Malampaya
Onshore Gas Plant. With this, the cost of fuel for an annual operation should also be
taken into account in calculating for the total operating expenses.
A. Liquefied Natural Gas
The price of LNG to be fed into the combustion chamber was obtained from the
site of Malampaya Onshore Gas Plant, which is $0.078/kWh (Yap & De Lara, 2017).
Whereas, the time is calculated as days multiplied by the number of seconds in a day. In
terms of the flow rate, it is varying based on each design option, denoted in kg/s. The
following calculations present the total cost for fuel.
Total Cost = Flow rate (kg/s) x Time (hrs) x Price per kWh
Total Cost = 25.02230616 kg/s x 31,536,000 s x $0.078/kWh
Total Cost = $61,550,068.87
Total Cost = $64,098,678.77
Total Cost = $34,553,059.69
192
As shown from the calculations performed above, the following tables will
provide the summary. For the first design option, Table 56 is presented.
Table 56
Total Fuel Cost for Design Option 1
Fuel Flow rate Time (s) Price per Total Price ($)
(kg/s) kWh
LNG 25.02230616 31536000 0.078 61,550,068.87
TOTAL FUEL COST ($) 61,550,068.87
With a flow rate of 25.02230616 kg/s in a span of 31536000 seconds and a price
of $0.078/kWh, the total annual fuel cost will be $61,550,068.87. Meanwhile, Table 57
shows the total fuel cost for design option 2.
Table 57
(kg/s) kWh
LNG 26.05840731 31536000 0.078 64,098,678.77
TOTAL FUEL COST ($) 64,098,678.77
For a flow rate of 26.05840731 kg/s in a span of 31536000 seconds and a price of
$0.078/kWh, the total annual fuel cost will be $64,098,678.77, higher than that of the first
design option. Lastly, Table 58 displays the total fuel cost for design option 3.
Table 58
193
(kg/s) kWh
LNG 5.029691165 31536000 0.078 12,372,074.57
TOTAL FUEL COST ($) 12,372,074.57
Considering the flow rate of 5.029691165 kg/s in a span of 31536000 seconds and
a price of $0.078/kWh, the total annual fuel cost will be $12,372,074.57, much lower
than that of the first and second design options.
Total Operating Expenditures
Upon calculating all the necessary aspects termed as the operating expenditures,
the results were tabulated in accordance to each design option. For Table 59, the total
expenses in operation was shown.
Table 59
Total Operating Expenditure for Design Option 1
Description Total Cost ($)
Labor Cost 2,017,891.00

Miscellaneous Cost 127,975,335.05
Fuel Cost 61,550,068.87
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES ($) 191,543,294.92
With a labor cost of $2,017,891.00, a miscellaneous cost of $127,975,335.05, and
the fuel cost of $61,550,068.87, the total operating cost yielded to $191,543,294.92. On
the other hand, Table 60 shows the total operating expenditure for the second design
option.
194
Table 60
Labor Cost 2,248,211.45

Extra Cost 126,440,114.83
Fuel Cost 64,098,678.77
Considering the labor cost of $2,248,211.45, a miscellaneous cost of
$126,440,114.83, and the fuel cost of $64,098,678.77, the total operating cost yielded to
$192,787,005.05, much higher than the first. Whereas, Table 61 displays the total
operating expenditure for the last design option.
Table 61
Labor Cost 2,334,643.30

Extra Cost $147,024,736.11
Fuel Cost $34,553,059.69
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES ($) $183,912,439.10
Taking into account the labor cost of $2,334,643.30, a miscellaneous cost of
$147,024,736.11, and the fuel cost of $34,553,059.69, the total operating cost yielded to
$183,912,439.10, much lower compared to other options.
195
Total Project Cost
The total project cost covers the overall cost of the power plant system wherein
the calculation is simply the sum of the total capital and operating expenditures. Hence,
shown in the following tables are the total project costs for each design option. Table 62
displays the total cost of the project for the first design option.
Table 62
Total Project Cost for Design Option 1
Total Capital Expenditures 304,703,178.70
Total Operating Expenditures 191,543,294.92
With a total capital expenditure of $304,703,178.70 and a total operating
expenditure of $191,543,294.92, the total project cost amounts to $496,246,473.62.
Meanwhile, the table below tabulates the result for the total project cost of the second
design option.
Table 63
196
Considering the total capital expenditure of $351,222,541.20 and a total operating
expenditure of $192,787,005.05, the total project cost amounts to $544,009,546.24,
higher than the first design option. Lastly, the table below tabulates the result for the total
project cost of the last design option.
Table 64
In terms of the total capital and operating expenditures which have the value of
$490,082,453.70 and $183,912,439.10, respectively, the total project cost amounts to
$673,994,892.80, higher than the first and second design options.
Economic Evaluation
This section presents the evaluation of the economic aspect for the 155 MW
combined steam and gas power plant. It includes the customer sales, sales breakdown for
each type of consumer, annual revenue, salvage value, and annual depreciation costs.
This will aid in analyzing the marketability of the power plant in terms of the economic
indicators such as the net present value, return on investment, and payback period.
I. Customer Sales
Included in the economic analysis of a power plant is the sales obtained from the
consumers they supply to. In this project, the customers are divided into five
197
classifications, namely: streetlights, residential, commercial, public building, and
barangay power association (BAPA). Shown in Table 65 are the customer sales in kWh
and MWh units.
Table 65
Customer Sales
Description Rates (kWh) Rates (MWh)
Streetlights 589,226.21 589.23
Residential 143,491,508.93 143,491.51
Commercial 2,901,018.56 2,901.02
Public Building 2,533,462.65 2,533.46
BAPA 3,820,624.963 3,820.62
TOTAL CUSTOMER SALES 153,583.42
As seen above, the highest sales come from residential with 143,491.51 MWh,
followed by BAPA with 3,820.62 MWh, commercial with 2,901.02 MWh, and public
buildings with 2,533.46 MWh. The lowest comes from the streetlights with 589.23 MWh,
which yields to a total customer sales of 153,583.42 MWh.
II. Sales Breakdown
In line with the customer sales, the sales breakdown for each type will be
computed as the individual rate divided along the total customer sales, which is
153,583.42 MWh. Shown below are the individual calculations for the sales breakdown
of streetlights, residential, commercial, public buildings, and BAPA.
198
A. Streetlights
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 (𝑀𝑊ℎ)
Sales Percentage = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠
589.23 𝑀𝑊ℎ
Sales Percentage = 153,583.42 𝑀𝑊ℎ
Sales Percentage = 0.003836522211
B. Residential
143,491.51 𝑀𝑊ℎ
C. Commercial
2,901.02 𝑀𝑊ℎ
D. Public Building
2,533.46 𝑀𝑊ℎ
E. BAPA
3820.624963 𝑀𝑊ℎ
199
Tabulated below is the summary for the sales breakdown of each type, with their
own rates and percentage share.
Table 66
Sales Breakdown
Description Rates (MWh) Total Customer Percentage

Sales (MWh) (%)
0.3836522211
Streetlights 589.23 153,583.42
94.7312584
Residential 143,491.51 153,583.42
2.539999753
Commercial 2,901.02 153,583.42
2.300679718
Public Building 2,533.46 153,583.42
4.440990341
BAPA 3,820.62 153,583.42
100
TOTAL
Shown in Table 66 are the percentage shares for each type of consumer. The
highest is the residential with 94.7312584%, BAPA with 4.440990341%, commercial
with 2.539999753, public buildings with 2.300679718, and the lowest is streetlights with
0.3836522211%, for a total of 100%.
III. Annual Revenue
This section shows the annual revenue for the customers, referring to the product
of the generation rate, plant capacity, sales breakdown, and operating time of 24 hours a
day, 7 times a week. The generation rates, on the other hand, was obtained from the load
survey of QUEZELCO I, which differs in each type.
200
A. Streetlights
Annual Revenue = Generation rate x Plant Capacity x % Sales Breakdown
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkx Operating Time
Annual Revenue = $0.12 x 155000 x 0.003836522211 x 8760
Annual Revenue = $625,107.58
B. Residential
Annual Revenue = $0.18 x 155,000 x 0.947312584 x 8760
Annual Revenue = $231,526,984.79
C. Commercial
Annual Revenue = $0.16 x 155,000 x0.02539999753 x 8760
D. Public Building
Annual Revenue = $0.14 x 155,000 x 0.02300679718 x 8760
E. BAPA
201
Annual Revenue = $0.13 x 155000 x 0.044409903411 x 8760
Shown below is the tabulated form of the total annual revenue for a combined
cycle power plant with 155 MW capacity and operating time of 8760 hours.
Table 67
Total Annual Revenue for Design Option
Description Generation Plant % Sales Operating Annual Revenue

Rate Capacity Breakdown Time ($)
(kW)
Streetlights 0.12 155000 0.003836522 8760 625,107.58

211
Residential 0.18 155000 0.947312584 8760 231,526,984.79
Commercial 0.16 155000 0.025399997 8760 5,518,098.66

53
Public 0.14 155000 0.023006797 8760 4,373,408.09

Building 18
BAPA 0.13 155000 0.044409903 8760 7,838,969.69

41
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE ($) 249,882,568.82
The annual revenues for streetlights, residential, commercial, public building, and
BAPA are listed as follows: $625,107.58, $231,526,984.7, $5,518,098.66, $4,373,408.09,
and $7,838,969.69. Hence, the total revenue amounts to $249,882,568.82.
IV. Salvage Value
Salvage value is the estimated resale value of an asset at the end of its useful life.
The method that can be used in order to identify the salvage value is the declining
balance method. Furthermore, according to Sargent & Lundy (n.d.), the typical operating/
202
useful life of a combined cycle power plant is 25-30 years, in this case, the project
assumes that the useful life will be 30 years. Thus, the calculations for salvage value for
each design option are provided below.
2 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒
Salvage Value = (Total Capital Expenditure) x (1 - 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
)
2 30
Salvage Value = $304,703,178.70 x (1 - 30
)
Salvage Value = $38,457,432.24
)
2 30
Salvage Value = $351,222,541.20 x (1 - 30
)
)
2 30
Salvage Value = $490,082,453.70 x (1 - 30
)
V. Annual Depreciation Cost
For the annual depreciation, this needs to consider the interest rate of 8% as well
as the useful life of a combined cycle power plant which is operated for 30 years (Sargent
& Lundy, nd). Therefore, the annual depreciation cost for each design option is presented
below.
Annual Depreciation Cost = (Total Capital Expenditure - Salvage Value) x

203
𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ( 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 )
(1+𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒) −1
Annual Depreciation Cost = ($304,703,178.70 - $38,457,432.24) x
0.08
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk( 30 )
(1+0.08) −1
Annual Depreciation Cost = $2,350,266.59
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ( 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 )
Annual Depreciation Cost = ($351,222,541.20 -$44,328,769.85) x
0.08
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ( 30 )
(1+0.08) −1
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ( 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒 )
Annual Depreciation Cost = ($490,082,453.70 - $61,854,664.06) x
0.08
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk( 30 )
(1+0.08) −1
Net Present Value
One of the economic indicators that will determine if the plant is justifiable or not
is the net present value. It is the difference between the amount of cash that flows in and
out. Generally, this design utilizes the operational life of a combined power plant for 30
years. Shown in Figure 64 is the cash flow diagram applicable for all the design options.
204
Figure 64. Cash Flow Diagram
The figure above presents the cash flow diagram for the proposed 155 MW
combined steam and gas power plant. For a useful life of 30 years as stated by Sargent &
Lundy (n.d.), the revenue (R) is denoted by arrows pointing upward from year 1 to year
30, whereas expenditures (E) are for arrows pointing downward. Meanwhile, the cash
outflow (Co) begins from the starting operation of the plant and salvage value (SV) at the
end of the useful life.
I. Cash Inflows
The cash inflow refers to the money that flows into the power plant system which
includes the revenue and salvage value.
A. Present Value of Annual Revenue
The revenue is referred to as the income generated through the project operations,
wherein the present value of the annual revenue considers the interest rate of 8% and the
useful life of 30 years, as shown in the calculations below.
205
−𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑒
1−(1+𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)
PV of Annual Revenue = Annual Revenue x ( 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
)
−30
1−(1+0.08)
PV of Annual Revenue = $249,882,568.82 x ( 0.08
)
PV of Annual Revenue = $2,813,123,821
)
−30
1−(1+0.08)
)
)
−30
1−(1+0.08)
)
B. Present Value of Salvage Value
In terms of the present value, this also takes in consideration the interest rate and
useful life of 8% and 30 years, respectively, which is multiplied to the salvage value
obtained earlier. Even if the interest and useful years are constant for the three design
options, each still has its own present value of salvage value.
PV of Salvage Value = Salvage Value x (1 + 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)
−30
PV of Salvage Value = $38,457,432.24 x (1 + 0. 08)
206
PV of Salvage Value = $3,821,797.03
−30
PV of Salvage Value =$44,328,769.85 x (1 + 0. 08)
−30
PV of Salvage Value = $61,854,664.06 x (1 + 0. 08)
C. Present Value of Cash Inflows
Upon calculating the present values of annual revenue and salvage values, the
sum of it will be solved to determine the present value of cash inflows, as shown below.
PV of Cash Inflows = PV of Annual Revenue + PV of Salvage Value
PV of Cash Inflows = $2,813,123,821 + $3,821,797.03
PV of Cash Inflows = $2,816,945,618.00
207
II. Cash Outflows
Cash outflow refers to the money that flows out from the power plant, such as the
expenses that involve the total project cost and annual cost.
PV of Cash Outflows = Total Project Cost +( (Total Annual Cost) x

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ( 𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
)
PV of Cash Outflows = $496,246,473.62 +( ($193,893,561.51) x

−30
1−(1+0.08)
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ( 0.08
)
PV of Cash Outflows = $2,679,058,180.77

)
PV of Cash Outflows = $544,009,546.24 +( ($195,496,089.37) x

−30
1−(1+0.08)
)

)
PV of Cash Outflows =$676,318,030.35 + (( $190,015,728.95) x

−30
1−(1+0.08)
)
208
Hence, the net present value may be obtained by subtracting the cash outflows
from the cash inflows. In order to determine if the power plant is profitable, the net
present value should be greater than 0.
Net Present Value = PV of Cash Inflows - PV of Cash Outflows
Net Present Value = $2,816,945,618 - $2,679,058,180.77
Net Present Value = $137,887,437.23
∴ Since NPV > 0, the power plant is economically justified.
Net Present Value = $2,817,529,095.87 - $2,744,862,164.82
Net Present Value = $2,819,270,772.48 - $2,786,997,421.75
III. Return on Investment
The rate of return (ROI) is the gain or loss of an investment over a certain period
of time. This can be computed by the ratio of net annual revenue to the capital
expenditure, or simply the ratio of the difference in annual revenue and cost all over the
209
total project cost. Meanwhile, to determine if the project is justified in economic terms,
the ROI should be greater than the interest rate, which is 8%.
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

Return on Investment = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
x 100%
$249,882,568.82 − $193,893,561.51
Return on Investment = $496,246,473.62
x 100%
Return on Investment = 11.28249978 %
∴ Since ROI > 8%, the power plant is economically justified.

x 100%
$249,882,568.82 − $195,496,089.37
x 100%

x 100%
$249,882,568.82 − $187,692,591.39
x 100%
IV. Payback Period
The last economic indicator is the payback period which refers to the number of
years the investment of the project can be recovered. This can be calculated by dividing
the total project cost to the difference between total revenue and annual cost. To
determine if the project is economically viable, the payback period of the combined cycle
210
power plant should be in the range of 8.5 to 15 years, as stated by Hittingers and
Williams (2021).
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

Payback Period = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
$496,246,473.62
Payback Period = $249,882,568.82 − $193,893,561.51
Payback Period = 8.863284018 years ≈ 9 years
∴ Since Payback Period> 8.5 years, the power plant is economically
justified.

$544,009,546.24
Payback Period = $249,882,568.82 − $195,496,089.37
justified.

$673,994,892.80
Payback Period = $249,882,568.82 − $187,692,591.39
justified.
211
Sensitivity Analysis
The sensitivity analysis for the 155 MW combined cycle power plant will be
presented in this section. Sensitivity analysis will make it easier to determine the
important factors that affect the project cost for developing the power plant. It enables the
proponents to point out potential improvements for the power plant's profitability. The
following aspects are to be considered: sudden change in LNG fuel price, useful life of
the equipment, and the generation rate per kWh. They will be analyzed for each design
option, specifically on their effect with the present worth of the plant.
In line with this, the calculations for sensitivity analysis will cover all the results
from the performed computations on the capital and operating expenditures, as well as
the depreciation cost, salvage value, and annual revenue for a specific interest rate and
period of time. Hence, shown in Table 68 is the summary for design option 1.
Table 68
Summary of Design Option 1
Description Value
Depreciated Rate, x 0.03333333333
Useful Life, n/L 30
Interest Rate, i 0.08
Salvage Value, $ 38,457,432.24
Annual Depreciation, $ 2,350,266.59
Annual Revenue, $ 249,882,568.82
Total Annual Cost, $ 193,893,561.51
Total Capital Expenditure, $ 304,703,178.70
Operating Expenditure, $ 127,975,335.05
212
Table 68 (Continue)
Labor Cost, $ 2,017,891
Fuel Cost, $ 61,550,068.87
Total Operating Expenditure, $ 191,543,294.92
Total Project Cost ($) 496,246,473.62
As seen in the table above, for a useful life of 30 years, interest rate of 8%, and
depreciation rate of 0.03333333333, the salvage value, annual depreciation cost, annual
revenue, annual cost, capital expenditure, labor cost, fuel cost, operating expenditure, and
total project cost were provided. This is applicable for a power plant system with simple
cycles in both steam and gas.
Meanwhile, presented in the table below is the summary for design option 2.
Table 69
Description Value
Useful Life, n/L 30
Total Annual Cost, $ 195,496,089.37
Total Capital Expenditure, $ 351,222,541.20
213
Table 69
Operating Expenditure, $ 126,440,114.83

Labor Cost, $ 2,248,211.45
Fuel Cost, $ 64,098,678.77
Total Operating Expenditure, $ 192,787,005.05
Total Project Cost ($) $544,009,546.24
Observed in Table 69 that for a useful life of 30 years, interest rate of 8%, and
total project cost were listed. This applies for a power plant system with a simple cycle in
gas and a single-stage reheat for steam.
Lastly, the summary for the last design option is displayed in Table 70.
Table 70
Description Value
Useful Life, n/L 30
214
Table 70
Total Annual Cost, $ $187,692,591.39
Total Capital Expenditure, $ $490,082,453.70

Operating Expenditure, $ $183,912,439.10
Labor Cost, $ 2,334,643.30
Fuel Cost, $ $34,553,059.69
Total Operating Expenditure, $ $183,912,439.10
Total Project Cost ($) $673,994,892.80
Table 70 illustrates that for a useful life of 30 years, interest rate of 8%, and
total project cost were calculated as given. Thus, this is applicable for a power plant
system with single-stage reheat for gas and a simple reheat-regenerative cycle for steam.
On the other hand, the effect in three aspects were analyzed for a power plant
system with the percent change prediction of -40% to 40% with a 10% interval. A spider
plot will be utilized to graphically present the result on present worth being dependent
with LNG fuel price, useful life of components, and generation per kWh.
215
Design Option 1
Figure 65. Sensitivity Analysis for Design Option 1
Figure 65 shows the graphical representation of the predictions for LNG fuel price
labeled by a blue line, useful life of the equipment for the orange line, and green line for
the generation rate per kWh. Similar to the first design option, it is clearly seen that all
the variables cause either increase and decrease with the present worth of the power
plant, however, the change for useful life has much lesser effect compared to the other
two. For a 40% increase or decrease, the trend of the line for the generation rate and
useful life is increasing, whereas for the LNG price is decreasing. In terms of the present
worth, the design may be considered not economically viable if its value is negative.
Therefore, the increase of approximately 20% on the price of the LNG fuel as well as
10% decrease on the generation rate will be considered unprofitable for the project. The
constant decrease of $15,089,348.18 has been recorded for the LNG price fuel and
constant increase of $56,262,476.42 for the present worth from the generation rate.
216
Furthermore, the most sensitive variable is the generation rate since it has the steepest
slope as compared to that of LNG price and useful life.
Design Option 2
A graphical review of the projections for the price of LNG fuel is depicted in the
image above with a blue line for LNG fuel, an orange line for equipment usable life, and
a green line for generation rate per kWh. It is apparent that each variable affects how
much the power plant is supposedly worth, either increasing or decreasing it. However,
the change in useful life has a considerably smaller impact than the other two. The trend
of the line is increasing for the generation rate and useful life while decreasing for the
price of LNG for a 40% rise or drop. Also, if the design has a negative present worth, it
might not be considered economically feasible. As a result, the project will be interpreted
as unprofitable if the price of LNG fuel increases by about 10% and the generation rate
decreases by 10%. For the price of LNG fuel, a continuous decrease of $15,714,154.34
217
has been noted, whereas a constant gain of $56,262,476.42 for the present value resulting
from the generation rate. Moreover, the generation rate is the most susceptible variable
because its slope is steeper than that of the price of LNG and usable life of equipment.
Design Option 3
The image above shows a graphical analysis of the price prediction for LNG fuel,
with a green line for generation rate per kWh, an orange line for equipment useful life,
and a blue line for LNG fuel. It is observed that every single factor has an impact on how
much the power plant is currently worth, either raising or lowering it. The difference in
useful life, however, has a far lower effect than the other two. The trendline is upward for
generation rate and useful life for a 40% increase or decrease, but downward for LNG
price. However, the design might not be regarded as economically feasible if it has a
negative present value. As a result, the project will be viewed as unprofitable if the price
of LNG fuel increases by about 10% and the generation rate decreases by 10%. For the
price of LNG fuel, a continuous drop of $3,033,084.19 has been seen, as well as the
218
constant gain of $56,262,476.42 for the present value resulting from the generation rate.
Moreover, similar to the first and second design options, the generation rate is the most
vulnerable variable because its slope is steeper than that of the price and usable life of
LNG.
219
CHAPTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
This chapter assesses the environmental impact of the proposed 155 MW
combined steam and gas power plant at Quezon province, particularly on land, water, air,
as well as the residents and ecology. The social, political, and ethical aspects will also be
taken into consideration during the construction until the plant operation. Standards such
as from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) will also be
discussed in terms of the health and safety requirements, especially about the wastes and
pollutants that will be emitted at the facility. With this, mitigation strategies will be
developed to decrease any unexpected environmental effects that might arise.
Environmental Impact Assessment
It is important to assess and determine first the direct and indirect environmental
impacts of the proposed 155 MW combined gas and steam cycle power plant in the
province of Quezon to come up with efficient mitigating measures. The process of
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) involves the evaluation and prediction of
impacts of a project on the environment during construction, commissioning, operation,
and abandonment. It also includes designing appropriate preventive, mitigating and
enhancement measures that address these consequences in order to protect the
environment and the welfare of the community (DENR, 2023). Hence, this method to
lessen negative effects and assist in customizing the project to the local environment may
be created early in the design and planning stages of the project.
A gas turbine and a steam turbine are used to generate power in a combined-cycle
technology. Natural gas and saltwater will be utilized in the planned project, which does
220
have a lesser environmental effect than other fossil fuels. By producing steam from the
exhaust heat of the gas turbine, power is produced twice as efficiently and with less
waste. Meanwhile, in the steam cycle, water from the turbine passes through the
condenser and goes to the cooling tower and feedwater heater before being reused in the
cycle. The gases emitted by the chimney, on the other hand, are filtered to guarantee that
any chemicals present do not significantly increase environmental pollution.
Listed below are some of the environmental impact assessments procedures that
may be considered on the proposed combined gas and steam cycle power plant.
Land
The preparation for the construction requires excavations which can cause
geological changes and minor seismic activities. Therefore, the proponents need to
conduct a field survey and review reports about the target location with the help of
government agencies such as Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR), Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services
Administrations (PAGASA) and Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS). This involves the collection of soil samples in the project site and
conducting soil testing to determine the initial chemical and physical condition of the
soil. In line with this, the municipality of General Luna contains a non-saline type of soil
with a range of 0-2. This can be a good choice for the construction of the power plant
because non-saline soil does not contain salt that reduces the corrosion resistance
property of the infrastructure.
221
Water
Conducting field assessments on bodies of water around the project site will be
done to evaluate water quality and protect it from pollution caused by the power plant's
construction. Hence, it is a must to examine the DENR records in Barangay Bacong
Ibaba, Quezon Province, and perform surveys of marine life in the project site. It is also
required to monitor the waste water output of the power plant as this may affect the
aquatic life there.
Air
Risk mitigation measurements for air include performing an air quality
monitoring near the project site to determine the components of the ambient air. Studying
the most recent PAGASA reports on the meteorology and climate of the target site will
also help to better understand the region and anticipate hazards from future natural
disasters. Lastly, since the plant system involves the combustion process, monitoring the
emissions from the proposed power plant from the construction to the start of operation
will help to take an action that will reduce adverse effects to the community and
environment.
Resident and Ecology in the Area
Even though the plant is situated in a reasonable distance to the neighborhood,
perception surveys may be conducted to the residents in Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General
Luna, Quezon to learn what they think about the proposed power plant. Whereas, to
reduce the impact of power plant construction on the ecology of the target area, the
proponents should perform terrestrial flora and fauna surveys. This will help them to
understand the species and behavior that live in the region and how the proposed project
222
would affect them. So, if there are potential risks, those affected plants and animals can
be moved immediately in new habitats far from the target location.
Social Considerations
During the construction period, local workforce from the nearby town and within
the Quezon province shall be employed for the construction works. This will contribute
too much needed monetary income in the region. The contractors shall discuss potential
barriers for employment with local labor / training organizations so that measures to
overcome these barriers can be developed and put in place. The company will assure that
there is no discrimination in hiring and salaries will not be based on gender, age, religion,
ethnicity, or place of origin.
Moreover, there are no people living at the site and no land is used by the local
population in General Luna, Quezon. The area has already been acquired, fenced, and
foreseen for construction and entered a land purchase agreement with the seller. Thus, the
proposed project guarantees that the land is free of any form of occupancy or any other
possession by any third party and there are no current and, to the best of its knowledge,
threatened or pending actions, suits or other proceedings. The land is solely for energy,
transport, communication, utility, and infrastructure objects only.
In addition, there are no houses or private assets located inside the construction
site, so no physical relocation or acquisition of further land will be necessary for this
project. Some fields and farmlands are located near part of the construction site but
outside of the project area. These will not be impacted by the project. However, there are
some who live illegally near the construction site, which may be affected by noise and air
impacts, but no physical or economic displacement will occur due to the project.
223
Lastly, if there is any chance of a cultural and historical site, the construction has
to be stopped immediately and the agency of protection of historical and cultural
monuments/ ministry of culture has to be informed to agree on further steps. Luckily,
there are no cultural or historic sites known within the construction site and the project
area.
Political Considerations
In establishing a combined cycle power plant, there are political considerations to
comprehend. The constitution stipulates that the Philippines is a sovereign, independent,
unitary and indivisible republic headed by the President. In line with this, the state is
organized according to the principle of separation and balance of the powers - the
Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary - in the framework of constitutional
democracy, guaranteed by political pluralism.
The impacts of the proposed project are identified in order to calculate the
potential consequences of constructing the combined cycle power plant. The government
changes the standards for attaining acceptable levels based on the results. With large
capacity generation being developed to address increasing energy demand, NGCP is also
preparing to enable the grid integration of these power production units. One example is
with approximately 1500 MW of electricity entering the grid wherein once these plants
are operational, it is a must to have a new power gateway in Quezon province that can
absorb all of this (NGCP, 2020).
In line with this, the NGCP just completed a series of public consultations with
the Quezon local government and the communities that will be affected by the project.
They organized these conversations to showcase the project, obtain community support,
224
and address any concerns the public may have, particularly about right-of-way
acquisition and the possible impact of the project on livelihoods. Therefore, it will help to
accelerate project implementation and create a stronger power transmission backbone in
Southern Luzon with the collaboration of the LGU, other connected government
agencies, and host communities.
Ethical Considerations
It is important to understand the fundamental ethical issues involved in building a
combined cycle power plant. There are advantages and downsides to operating this type
of power plant. Natural gas is the primary fuel used and when compared to other fossil
fuels, it has the lowest environmental impact. Despite these low values, it is still
preferable to reduce the consequences to a minimum.
The comparatively low release of greenhouse gasses caused by emissions of
carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide helps to minimize the impacts of ozone
depletion. Therefore, maintaining and controlling these emissions as minimally as
possible to minimize effects on the environment and the local population is significant.
Furthermore, the noise emissions from the numerous parts of the power plant, including
the condenser, steam turbine, and heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), should also be
taken into account. This emission will be reduced through appropriate noise reduction
techniques. Thus, to learn how to execute effective noise reduction, decibel
measurements will be taken at several locations in relation to the power plant.
With regards to the discharge of wastewater, this must also be appropriately taken
into account because nearby local communities depend on the aquatic resources. Several
225
water treatment processes are needed to be considered before disposing wastewater into
the surrounding water resources in order to reduce pollution.
Health Requirements
Thermal power plants are extremely complicated structures that produce
electricity using processes, such as combustion of fuel and cycles of steam generation.
These procedures use dangerous materials and provide serious risks to both the
environment and the health and safety of the personnel. Power plants must adhere to
strict health and safety regulations in order to reduce these dangers.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules are one of the
main health and safety requirements for power plants. Power plants are required by
OSHA-established requirements to ensure a safe and healthy working environment for
their personnel. OSHA regulations cover a wide range of dangers, including electrical,
chemical, and physical dangers, and they require the use of protective gear to reduce
exposure to these dangers. On the other hand, the norms and standards of the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) are another significant standard for power plants.
The storage and handling of flammable and combustible materials, electrical equipment,
and fuel systems are just a few of the hazards that these standards cover when it comes to
fire and explosion hazards in power plants. To reduce the risk of fire and explosion, the
NFPA also offers rules for the design, construction, and upkeep of power plants.
Power plants should also follow industry-specific standards, such as those set by
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), in addition to these legal
requirements. A variety of subjects are covered by the IEEE standards, including
electrical safety, protective relaying, and generator protection. As they offer rules for the
226
design, construction, testing, and maintenance of power plant equipment, these standards
are essential for preserving the dependability and safety of power plants. In order to
maintain compliance with legal requirements and standards particular to the industry,
power plants also adopt a variety of safety management systems. These systems, which
include safety rules, procedures, and training courses, are intended to recognize and
reduce risks, avoid mishaps and injuries, and foster a safety culture inside the company.
To sum up, in order to guarantee the security of both employees and the
surrounding area, power plants must adhere to strict health and safety regulations.
Regulatory standards such as OSHA and NFPA codes and industry-specific standards like
IEEE provide guidelines for the design, construction, and maintenance of power plant
equipment. To ensure adherence to these requirements and foster a safety culture inside
the power plant, safety management systems, which include policies, procedures, and
training programs, are also essential. Power plants can continue to provide electricity in a
secure and environmentally friendly way by adhering to these requirements.
Safety Requirements
There are numerous professions where a certain level of risk is expected because
it is part of the job. In power plants, safety in material handling, such as natural gas
handling systems and other chemical handling systems, and also safety in boiler
operation must be considered.
Proper housekeeping for safety and good plant operation must be taken into
account in order to reduce risk for workers and provide a good flow of plant operation.
Power plants should also follow design standards for proper ventilation and fresh air
circulation. Moreover, workers must be trained before the actual work in plant operation
227
to avoid accidents. Proper clothing and personal protective equipment (PPE) should be
observed properly. The boiler operator needs to have knowledge of fitting boiler
accessories and other safety equipment.
Meanwhile, necessary information about the material handling system must be
displayed properly as well as the storage system. Equipment selection must also follow
codes and standards. Materials should be stored properly in a sealed tank. There should
be bond walls to prevent tank leakages. Skills development training must also be
provided for workers to avoid unnecessary activities that might lead to accidents. Rated
fire extinguishers must be provided in all areas where fire might start. Lastly, there should
be routine maintenance, calibration, and testing of the burner management system and
combustion control safety device and transmitter to avoid loose ends in boiler operation.
Defective equipment must be replaced immediately to avoid further failures in overall
plant operation.
DENR Standards
The preservation, maintenance, and development of the nation's environment and
natural resources are under the purview of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). It must guarantee the correct use of these resources as well as
environmental conservation within the context of sustainable development. In line with
the department’s purpose, the proposed power plant will fall under the energy projects
where legal procedures must be followed.
According to Republic Act No. 1936, also known as the Electric Power Industry
Reform Act (EPIRA) of 2001, the proposed power plant shall strengthen the market
growth, assure customer choice, stimulate competition, and punish market power abuse in
228
the restructured electrical sector. Furthermore, once the budget for this project is
obtained, the proponents or the investors must follow the process and complete the
following requirements set by this reform.
Figure 68. Process Flow for Conventional Power Projects
Source: www.doe.gov.ph
The figure presents the main processes that the proposed power plant must follow.
For every procedure, there are requirements that must be fulfilled. The preliminary step
after the budget is obtained is for the power plant to be registered. The proponents for this
project shall present the overall plan for the powerplant to the Department of Energy to
obtain the certificate of endorsement which is one of the requirements needed. Moreover,
the other requirements includes the certificate of registration form securities and
Exchange Commissions Department, certificate of registration together with the taxpayer
identification number (TIN) from the bureau of internal revenues, the barangay clearance
from the barangay which the plan will be located, the business permit from the
municipality office and since the proposed power plant is located at the Brgy. Bacong
Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon, the proponents must contact the barangay as well, as well
as the municipality with regards to these requirements. In continuation of the
requirements for the registration process, the employer and employees registration must
be fulfilled at the Social Security System office, the pag-ibig employer’s registration from
229
Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG office, the employer’s registration on
PhilHealth and lastly the business registration from the Department of Labor and
Employment.
After the registration, the proposed power plant will start its construction but
before that, requirements must be complete and standards must be followed accordingly.
Numerous legal departments shall approve the proposed design and layout of the power
plant before proceeding to the actual construction. This is the reason behind the
requirements under the pre-construction process. Agreements composed using the
Department of Energy and Natural Resources (DENR) standards must be signed by both
parties, the DENR and the proponents of the proposed power plant. This agreement
includes Employees’ Compensation Commision (ECC), Forest Land Use Agreement
(FLAg), Foreshore Lease Agreement, etc. Furthermore, the proponents of the proposed
power plant must conduct a system impact study and facility study which will be
presented to the National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP).
Meanwhile, the study with regards the impact of the proposed power plant to the
other electricity providers in the Philippines must be considered and presented to the
Department of Energy (DOE). Also, the power supply agreement must be fulfilled from
this department. The National Commision on Indigenous People (NCIP) will also take
part in constructing the proposed power plant by assuring that the people residing near
the proposed location of the power plant are protected. For this reason, free prior
informed consent, certificate of non-overlap or certificate of precondition are done with
this department. The department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is responsible for the land
use conversion of the proposed power plant. On the other hand, the endorsement and
230
other resolutions regarding the proposed power plant is done by the Local Government
Unit (LGU) of the municipality of Quezon and the barangay of Bacong Ibaba. The
Philippine Board of Investments (BOI) is an agency that interferes with the importation
authority of the proposed power plant, as well as the project registration. The proposed
power plant must also get the water permit from the National Water Resources Board
(NWRB).
More importantly, the proposed power plant must follow the standards such as the
height limitation clearance, if the smokestack is within 2-km radius of a runway or air
strip provided by Civil Aviation Authority (CAAP). The permit to supply natural gas,
pipeline permit and permit for construction, maintenance as well as the ER 1-94
Memorandum of Agreement and the certificate of endorsement for other agencies are
given by the Department of Energy (DOE) once the power plant achieves the
requirements and standards from this reform.
The development and construction of the proposed power plant also needs
numerous permits, clearance, certifications and agreements from different departments.
Before proceeding with the actual construction, the proponents and the investors shall
obtain permit and clearance from the Local Government Unit of Barangay Bacong Ibaba,
Quezon City. The Department of Labor and Employment will also require the proposed
power plant to have occupational safety and health (OSH) officers before proceeding
with the construction. The Bureau of Customs will issue an importation clearance if the
standards under this clearance are approved. The National Grid Power Corporation is
responsible for the connection agreement, transmission service application, metering
service agreement and certificate of approval to connect. Furthermore, the Energy
231
Regulatory Commission will issue the certificate of compliance and lastly the certificate
of registration is issued by the Philippine Electricity Market Corporation.
After the plant is built and ready to function, monitoring its process and the plant
itself is a must. Various departments are required to observe and keep track of the
condition of the power plant. The LGU, NGCP, ERC, TRANSCO, BOI and DOE are
some of the departments that will continue its connection with the power plant. In this
way, the standards set by this department is followed by the power plant. To sum up,
these requirements and standards are used to make the proposed power plant sustainable,
functional and safe that can benefit both the investors or proponents and the people that
will be the consumers.
Waste Management
Product waste elimination must constantly adhere to the guidelines established by
the government for environmental compliance and preservation. Waste that is not
disposed of properly might harm the environment. Power plant trash must be disposed of
appropriately since the facility produces several end products that call for particular
disposal techniques. Each organization has a different approach to waste utilization since
the power plant produces a variety of waste products. Several of these include recycling
the parts that can still be usefully utilized. While handling waste from power plants,
factors such as human health, aesthetics, and environmental protection are taken into
account.
Power plant waste can be created by the system or the employees and it comes in
all types. Furthermore, the Republic Act No. 9003 also known as the Ecological Solid
Waste Management Act of 2000 is recognized by the proponents of the proposed power
232
plant. This law is composed of the proper disposal of waste, as well as its segregation. In
addition, this regulation highlights the importance of a clean environment and expresses
grave concern for the health of the people living in a defined area. The aforementioned
republic legislation specifies the proper procedure of dealing with garbage, from
collection, segregation, transportation, removal of dangerous items, and discharge. It also
encourages residents to use recycling materials extensively in order to decrease trash
output and live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. Companies that produce
energy, such power plants, are closely monitored and inspected for compliance with the
republic act since these facilities produce significant amounts of trash that might pose a
serious threat to the environment and human health. The legislation includes clear
directions for appropriate disposal along with the consequences and punishments for
those who break the law.
Pollutant Emissions
Natural gas, a fuel with a lesser environmental effect than other fossil fuels, is
used to produce electricity using combined-cycle power plants (CCPP), which employs
both a gas turbine and a steam turbine. By producing steam from the gas turbine's exhaust
heat, energy is produced twice as much efficiently and with less waste.
A combined cycle power plant produces mostly Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and
Carbon Monoxide (CO), whereas Sulfur Dioxide (SOx) and Promethium (PM) are
irrelevant since natural gas contains no sulfur and burning of a gaseous fuel produces no
PM. The emission rate of the former two pollutants, however, is strongly dependent on
the gas turbine operating conditions: NOx formation is favored by high combustion
temperatures, so it is maximized at full-load operating conditions, whereas CO is emitted
233
due to an incomplete combustion process at low temperatures, so it is most emitted
during partial-load operation or start-ups. CO and NOx are produced during startup due
to the uneven flow distribution. Gonzales-Salazar et al. estimate that the emissions from a
CCGT start-up will fall between 0.02-0.9 kg/MW for NOx and 0.1-1.8 kg/MW for CO.
However, the following pollutant emissions will not affect the environment because the
proposed power plant layout and design is based on different standards and
considerations to ensure the safety of the workers and the consumers.
234
CHAPTER V
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EXECUTION PLAN
This chapter summarizes the execution plan for the construction of the proposed
155 MW combined steam and gas power plant at Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna,
Quezon. It includes the construction management and strategy, quality control and
assurance, work scheduling, as well as the overall management and commissioning of the
project.
Construction Management and Strategy
The construction of the proposed 155 MW combined cycle power plant requires
proper planning because of its complicated construction procedures and expensive
equipment. For the proposed project, there are fundamental phases that were followed to
ensure proper construction flow and economical execution of the project.
Project planning, this is the stage in which the different parameters for the
viability of the project are measured. Design options are developed for technical and
economic analysis. It also includes the right location selection technique, in which all of
the essential requirements must be fulfilled for an area to be set up by a combined cycle
power plant. Also, the proximity to water is an essential requirement for such criteria to
be satisfied, the same with the accessibility for fuel transportation. Moreover, factors such
as the effects on the surrounding environment will be considered towards the conclusion
of the planning process. Emissions to the environment are also taken into account.
Because of the actual project construction, the execution phase tends to take the longest.
During this phase, an engineering and construction team collaborate to build the different
services of the power plant. This stage typically begins with foundation excavation,
235
sewage, and electrical work, followed by the rise of the many structures that will house
the various activities of the plant. In this phase, the fundamental parts of a combined
cycle power plant such as the steam turbine, gas turbine, and HRSG, are also installed.
After the construction phase ends, the monitoring and control phase begins. At
this point, real performance testing is carried out to ensure that all of the measured
parameters have been met. Regular meetings are held to supervise the implementation of
the project and to create an expedient reaction to any concerns that arise. With any
change to the plan, management is accountable for providing a timely update and
disseminating it to all employees. Last is the commissioning phase, which includes final
component testing. Fuel transportation processes are also checked to ensure that there are
no delays. Furthermore, all auxiliary components, such as waste water treatment, are
examined to ensure the greatest performance. A critical step in this phase is to do final
tests on critical components such as pipes.
With this, the proposed 155 MW combined steam and gas cycle power plant to be
constructed for four years will operate at Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon.
The plant layout inserted on the target location is shown in the figure below.
Figure 69. Plant Layout of the Power Plant
236
As seen in Figure 69, the proposed layout of the combined cycle power plant is
situated on the land of Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon which is suitable for
commercial and industrial construction.
Quality Control and Assurance
The proposed combined cycle power plant construction should be managed
properly. As a result, quality control and assurance are crucial for ensuring that power
plants run effectively, safely, and with as few adverse environmental effects as possible.
Quality control is the process of ensuring that the products or services are
produced to meet or exceed specified requirements. In the context of the power plant,
quality control involves verifying that the power plant's components, processes, and
procedures meet the necessary standards for safety, efficiency, and environmental impact.
This includes testing the materials used in the construction of the power plant, assessing
the performance of the equipment, and monitoring the emissions produced by the plant.
Quality assurance, on the other hand, is the process of ensuring that quality control
measures are effectively implemented and maintained throughout the life cycle of the
power plant. It involves establishing and documenting procedures for quality control,
training personnel to follow those procedures, and continuously monitoring and
improving the quality control process.
Hence, to ensure that a power plant operates efficiently and safely, quality control
and assurance must be implemented at every stage of the power plant's life cycle, from
initial planning and design to decommissioning. In the planning and design stage, quality
control measures can ensure that the power plant is designed to meet or exceed the
necessary safety, efficiency, and environmental standards. This includes testing the
237
materials used in the construction of the power plant, assessing the performance of the
equipment, and monitoring the emissions produced by the plant.
During the construction and installation phase, quality control measures can
ensure that the power plant is built to the necessary specifications and standards, and that
the equipment is installed and tested correctly. This includes ensuring that all workers
involved in the construction and installation process have the necessary training and
qualifications to perform their tasks safely and effectively. Once the power plant is
operational, quality control and assurance measures must be continuously implemented to
ensure that the plant operates efficiently and safely. This includes monitoring the
performance of the equipment, testing the emissions produced by the plant, and
implementing procedures for maintaining and repairing the equipment as necessary.
In addition to ensuring that a power plant operates efficiently and safely, quality
control and assurance measures can also help to minimize the negative impact of the
power plant on the environment. This includes implementing procedures for monitoring
and reducing emissions, implementing procedures for managing waste products, and
implementing procedures for minimizing the use of natural resources. With that, the
proposed combined cycle power plant should follow the following quality control and
assurance procedures:
1. Providing a manual for the quality control and assurance of the project.
2. Regular inspections throughout the power plant construction should be implemented.
3. Strictly monitoring the construction and operation of the power plant.
4. Planning thorough each plant process and operation.
5. Conduct preliminary testing to verify all plant’s process and operation.
238
6. Documentation of the results of testing as well as the construction of the power plant.
Work Scheduling
The proposed 155 combined cycle power plant at Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General
Luna, Quezon has a detailed work schedule that outlines the necessary tasks and events
to be completed during the construction phase. The Gantt chart, as shown in the table
below, depicts the timeline for the period of construction, highlighting the essential
activities that need to be completed along with their expected durations for completion..
It also illustrates the quarterly timeline for the construction of the power plant from 2024
to 2027. Thus, the schedule was planned with the expectation that the construction would
be completed within a four-year timeframe.
239
Table 71
Work Schedule of the Combined Cycle Power Plant
2024 2025 2026 2027

Project Activity
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Conduct a Feasibility Study
Awarding of Contracts
Budgeting
Site Selection
Obtain Permits and

Approval
Power plant Design
Site Excavation
Material and Equipment

Procurement
Power Plant Construction
Electrical System
Installation
Testing and Commissioning
Operation and Maintenance
240
Initially, before starting the project, a feasibility study is carried out to determine
the technical, economic, and environmental viability of constructing a combined power
plant. This study helps to identify potential risks and challenges and provides a basis for
decision-making regarding the project. Then, the awarding of a contract for building a
power plant typically involves selecting the most qualified and capable contractor,
clarifying contractual terms and conditions, and establishing a mutually agreeable price
and payment schedule. The completion date for these two tasks is set to be before the end
of the first quarter of 2024.
Budgeting for the construction of the combined power plant requires careful
planning and monitoring to ensure that the project is completed on time and within
budget. The budget should include all expenses related to the project, including materials,
equipment, labor, permits, and other expenses. After completing the first three tasks, the
appropriate location for the power plant is selected, considering factors such as access to
fuel sources, proximity to transmission lines, and environmental considerations. The next
task involves obtaining permits and approvals, as local and state authorities require
various permits, including environmental permits, construction permits, and zoning
approvals. The completion of the third, fourth, and fifth tasks is planned for the second
quarter of 2024.
For the power plant design, detailed engineering plans and designs for the power
plant are developed, including the selection of equipment, materials, and construction
techniques. After designing a plant layout, site excavation will be done since site
excavation is an essential part of building a power plant as it involves the removal of soil,
rock, and other materials to prepare the ground for the construction of the power plant's
241
foundation and other structures. These tasks will be performed before the third quarter of
the year 2024 ends.
Once the tasks mentioned above are finished, the process of procuring the
necessary equipment, materials, and services required for the power plant construction
will commence. This task will be completed before the end of the first quarter of 2025.
The next task in constructing the combined power plant is the actual building process,
which typically starts with site preparation, including clearing the site of any obstructions
and leveling the ground. The next step is the construction of building foundations and
other necessary infrastructure, followed by the installation of various power generation
equipment and systems. The completion of these tasks is anticipated to take place before
the end of the second quarter of 2026.
The task of installing an electrical system, which includes creating a secure and
effective network of electrical components to distribute power from the power plant to
the grid, will be completed before the second quarter of 2027 is over. For the testing and
commissioning, this project activity involves a series of tests, inspections, and
procedures to ensure that the power plant is constructed and operating safely and
efficiently. This will be accomplished at the end of the third quarter of 2027. Lastly, once
the power plant is constructed and commissioned, it is essential to ensure that it continues
to operate safely and efficiently over its lifespan. The operation phase involves managing
the day-to-day operations of the power plant, which includes starting and stopping the
equipment, monitoring performance, and controlling the power output. The power plant
is planned to undergo operation and maintenance until the end of the fourth quarter of
242
2027, and it will be ready to provide its services to the intended consumers after that
time.
Overall Management and Commissioning of the Project
The construction and operation of the proposed power plant should be safe and
efficient at the same time. This will be done by regularly checking the equipment that are
utilized in building and operating the power plant. Also, workers should follow the safety
standards to lessen the risk of having accidents to achieve the desirable working
environment in the proposed power plant. Furthermore, commissioning in the industry is
checking and assessing the facility to be ready for the service. The following
considerations such as manuals and evaluations includes:
1. Administrative Manual
A document defining the accounting, financial, and auditing criteria that
must be observed while the Project is carried out is known as an administrative
manual. Moreover, each documentation of the system for the plant has
instructions for these tasks. While commissioning the power plant, competent
startup staff are required to deliver satisfactory performance with their abilities to
implement the numerous programs outlined in the handbook. Between
construction, startup, and plant operations, equipment, components, systems, and
structures are monitored and checked, and different reports, general control
measures, and procedural techniques are pointed out.
2. Monitoring Assessment
Power plants have standards to follow, some of these standards are
international level which means that these regulations must be followed and
243
achieved. Furthermore, separate elements are examined and evaluated as part of
monitoring evaluation until the complete plant is operated and tested, starting with
the compressor, gas turbine, HRSG, steam turbine, condenser, and pump. Often,
project operations are monitored and checked using scheduling software.
3. Technical Manual
An organized document that describes how to use, maintain, support, or
install a machine, procedure, system, or piece of equipment is called a technical
manual. Given the fact that power plants are composed of numerous equipment or
machines, the technical manual includes the start up of each machine.
4. Inspection Manual
After starting up every machine and equipment on the power plant,
inspecting each component is significant. This manual will help the personnel or
staff responsible for this task as this manual holds different data and information
that are important to ensure that every component is working properly.
244
CHAPTER VI
PROJECT DESIGN TRADE-OFFS
In this chapter, the three design options of the proposed combined steam and gas
cycle power plant are evaluated, considering multiple realistic constraints such as the
aspects for technical, economic, and environmental. Scales and calculated values are
utilized, which are analyzed through the Pareto Optimum analysis in order to establish
the optimum design option.
Analysis of Technical Aspects
Evaluating the technical aspects of the proposed three design options includes the
cycle efficiency, which is the efficiency of the power plant to generate electricity. As
indicated in the Handbook for Cogeneration and Combined Cycle Power Plants by Boyce
(2002), thermal efficiencies can reach up to 60%. Hence, shown in the table below is the
scale to be used for the analysis of cycle efficiency.
Table 72
Cycle Efficiency Scale
Cycle Efficiency (%) Scale
60 10
55 8
50 6
45 4
40 2
For the cycle efficiency, the maximum and minimum values are 60% and 40%,
with the interval of 5%. Alongside with is the scale corresponding to the values. The
245
highest is 10 and the lowest is 2, which is directly proportional to the cycle efficiency
since the higher the cycle efficiency, the greater it is to be the design of the power plant.
In line with this, the analysis for the three design options is shown in the table
below.
Table 73
Cycle Efficiency Analysis
Design Options Cycle Efficiency (%) Numerical Value
Design Option 1 56.84920911 8.739683644
Design Option 2 58.61012372 9.444049488
Design Option 3 58.3863411 9.354536439
The second design option is observed as the highest with the efficiency of
58.61012372% and numerical value of 9.444049488, followed by design option 3 with
58.3863411% and 9.354536439. Whereas the first design option has the lowest with
56.84920911% and 8.739683644.
Analysis of Economic Conditions
The economic aspect is also taken into account when designing a power plant,
including the profitability and its importance to the marker. This involves the net present
value, payback period, and rate of return of investment.
Shown in Table 4 is the scale to be utilized for analyzing the net present value.
Table 74
Net Present Value Scale
Net Present Value ($) Scale
246
Table 74
Net Present Value Scale
202,500,000.00 10
67,500,000.00 8
22,500,000.00 6
7,500,000.00 4
2,500,000.00 2
The maximum and minimum values for the net present value are $202,500,000.00
and $2,500,000.00, respectively with a scale of 10 as the highest and 2 as the lowest. The
relation is direct wherein the higher the net present value, the better is the design.
Therefore, the table below presents the analysis of the net present value.
Table 75
Net Present Value Analysis
Design Options Net Present Value ($) Numerical Value
Design Option 1 137,887,437.23 9.042776848
Design Option 2 72,666,931.04 8.076547127
Design Option 3 32,273,350.73 6.434371144
The first design option is observed as the highest with the net present value of
$137,887,437.23 and numerical value of 9.042776848, followed by design option 2 with
$72,666,931.04 and 8.076547127. Whereas the third design option has the lowest with
$32,273,350.73 and 6.434371144.
247
Meanwhile, the payback period should also be a factor in evaluating the design of
the power plant. It is stated from the article that in order to determine if the project is
economically viable, the payback period of the combined cycle power plant should be in
the range of 8.5 to 15 years (Hittingers and Williams, 2021). Tabulated below is the scale
for payback period.
Table 76
Payback Period Scale
Payback Period (years) Scale
3 10
6 8
9 6
12 4
15 2
The scale to be used is the same with the former ones, with 10 as the highest and
2 as the lowest. However, it is advised that the lesser the payback period, the better the
design of the power plant As such, the scale has an inverse relationship with the payback
period, with 3 as the minimum and 15 for the maximum.
In line with this, shown in Table 77 is the analysis for the payback period of three
design options.
Table 77
Payback Period Analysis
Design Options Payback Period (years) Numerical Value
248
Table 77 (Continue)
Payback Period Analysis
Design Option 1 8.863284018 6.091143988
Design Option 2 10.00266154 5.331558973
Design Option 3 10.83767708 4.774881947
The first design option is observed as the highest with the payback period of
8.863284018 years and numerical value of 6.091143988, followed by design option 2
with 10.00266154 years and 5.331558973. Whereas the third design option has the
lowest with 10.83767708 years and 4.774881947.
On the other hand, the rate of return should be greater than the interest rate
wherein the project utilized 8%. However, it is supported by Speights (2023) that a good
ROI has the value of 10% or more when dealing with long-term investments. As such,
displayed in the table below is the scale for rate of return.
Table 78
Rate of Return Scale
Rate of Return (%) Scale
15 10
12 8
9 6
6 4
3 2
249
The higher the rate of return, the more profitable a design is. Hence, the scale of
10 as highest and 2 as lowest is directly proportional to the rate of return with 15% as the
highest and 3% as the lowest.
In line with this, Table 79 shows the analysis for rate of return.
Table 79
Rate of Return Analysis
Design Options Rate of Return (%) Numerical Value
Design Option 1 11.28249978 7.52166652
Design Option 2 9.997339168 6.664892779
Design Option 3 9.227069536 6.151379691
The first design option is observed as the highest with the rate of return of
11.28249978% and numerical value of 7.52166652, followed by design option 2 with
9.997339168% and 6.664892779. Whereas the third design option has the lowest with
9.227069536% and 6.151379691.
Analysis of Environmental Conditions
Last to be taken into account is the environmental condition that refers to the
effect of the proposed design to the surroundings. This includes the factor of fuel to
which the plant utilizes liquefied natural gas (LNG) with mass flow rates that vary among
design options.
Illustrated in Table 80 is the scale for mass of fuel.
Table 80
Mass of Fuel Scale
250
Mass of Fuel (kg/s) Scale
2 10
4 8
8 6
16 4
32 2
The scale of 10 as the highest and 2 as the lowest is inversely proportional to the
mass of fuel since the lower the mass, the better it is to use the proposed design of the
power plant. Whereas, the minimum mass flow rate of fuel is 2 kg/s and 32 kg/s is the
highest.
With this, the analysis for mass of fuel is presented below.
Table 81
Mass of Fuel Analysis
Design Options Mass of Fuel Numerical Value
Design Option 1 25.02230616 2.87221173
Design Option 2 26.05840731 2.742699086
Design Option 3 14.04705558 4.488236105
The third design option is observed as the highest with the mass of fuel of
14.04705558 kg/s and numerical value of 4.488236105, followed by design option 1 with
25.02230616 kg/s and 2.87221173. Whereas the second design option has the lowest with
26.05840731 kg/s and 2.742699086.
251
Pareto Optimum Analysis for the Design Options
The Pareto optimum analysis is the method used for selecting the best design
option of the proposed 155 MW combined steam and gas cycle power plant. This shows
the importance of the design by considering multiple realistic constraints such as
technical, economical, and environmental.
As such, shown in the table below are the degrees of importance for each
constraint.
Table 82
Degree of Importance for Multiple Realistic Constraints
Multiple Realistic Constraints Degree of Importance
Technical Cycle Efficiency 5
Economical Net Present Value 1
Payback Period 2
Rate of Return 1
Environmental Mass of fuel 1
As seen in the table above, the technical, economical, and environmental factors
are evaluated through the degree of importance set. There is a value of 5 for the cycle
efficiency, 1 for the net present value, mass of fuel, and rate of return, and a value of 2 for
the payback period, with a total of 10.
In line with this, Table 83 presents the Pareto Optimum analysis for the first
design option.
Table 83
Pareto Optimum Analysis for Design Option 1
252
Multiple Realistic Constraints Value
Technical Cycle Efficiency 43.69841822
Design Economical Net Present Value 9.042776848

Option 1
Payback Period 12.18228798
Rate of Return 7.52166652
Environmental Mass of fuel 2.87221173
TOTAL 75.31736129
The total value for design option 1 is 75.31736129% with 43.69841822% for
cycle efficiency, 9.042776848% for net present value, 12.18228798% for payback period,
7.52166652% for the rate of return, and 2.87221173% for the mass of fuel.
Moreover, shown in Table 84 is the pareto optimum analysis for the second design
option.
Table 84

Option 2
TOTAL 75.36750438
253
The total value for design option 2 is 75.36750438% with 47.22024744% for
cycle efficiency, 8.076547127% for net present value, 10.66311795% for payback period,
Lastly, the pareto optimum analysis for design option 3 is presented below.
Table 85

Option 3
TOTAL 73.39643303
The total value for design option 3 is 73.39643303% with 46.7726822% for cycle
efficiency, 6.434371144% for net present value, 9.549763893% for payback period,
Best Design Option
Upon performing the Pareto Optimum analysis, Table 16 shows the summary of
the results obtained from analysis of technical, economic, and environmental
considerations. This was utilized to select the best design option.
254
Table 86
Summary of Results for Pareto Optimum Analysis
Design Option Value (%) Rank
1 75.31736129 2
2 75.36750438 1
3 73.39643303 3
The summary of results for Pareto optimum analysis is presented above. Design
option 1 has the value of 75.31736129% and design option 3 with 73.39643303%, lower
than the first design option. However, with a value of 7275.36750438%, design option 2
consisting of a single gas cycle and a single-stage reheat steam cycle is the highest among
the three. Hence, the optimum design for the proposed 155 MW combined steam and gas
cycle power plant is the second design option.
255
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this section, the summary of the findings are presented, as well as the
conclusion drawn for the proposed 155 MW combined steam and gas cycle power plant.
Also, recommendations are provided for improvements.
Summary of Findings
Based on a thorough evaluation and examination of the obtained results and data
in the proposed design of a 155 MW combined cycle power plant. The design summary
are presented below:
1. The proposed design of the 155 MW combined cycle power plant is situated in
Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General Luna, Quezon Province, which will provide
electrical energy for the Quezon I Electric Cooperative (QUEZELCO I)
distribution facility, particularly to the municipalities of third and fourth districts
covered by it.
2. Forecasting a 15-year demand projection leads to a peak load demand of 115.51
MW for the year 2038, added by a 15% system loss and 19% reserve capacity,
resulting in 155 MW capacity of the power plant. It was used to calculate the load
factor and plant capacity factor of 72.9% and 54.3%, respectively.
3. The following design options are presented in the design project, such as the
design option 1 that consists of a simple Brayton and Rankine Cycle, design
option 2 which presents a simple gas turbine cycle and a single-stage reheat steam
turbine, and design option 3 with a single-stage reheat gas cycle and single-stage
reheat-regenerative steam cycle.
256
4. The obtained overall plant efficiencies for design options 1,2, and 3 are
56.842920911% , 58.61012372%, and 57.53681548%, respectively.
5. A net present value for the first design option is $137,887,437.23 which is
economically advantageous, a nine-year payback period that shows a low-level
economic risk, and rate of return of 11.28249978 %. For design option 2, the net
present value is $72,666,931.04 which is economically advantageous, a ten-year
payback period that shows a low-level economic risk, and a rate of return of
9.997339168 %. Lastly, the net present value for the third design option is
$3,796,833.87, the payback period is 11 years and 3 months, and the rate of return
is 8.851876955%, assuming that the powerplant will be operating for 30 years.
6. The establishment of a 155 MW combined cycle power plant will consider the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the social, political, and ethical
considerations, as well as the health and safety requirements, DENR standards,
waste management, and pollutant emissions. Conducting field assessments on
bodies of water around the project site will be done to evaluate water quality and
protect it from pollution caused by the power plant's construction. Risk mitigation
measurements for air include performing an air quality monitoring near the
project site to determine the components of the ambient air.
7. From the Pareto Optimum analysis with values of 72.09842904%,
72.77864449%, and 69.86660121% for design options 1, 2, and 3, respectively,
the best alternative design option 2 which is the combined cycle power plant
operating with simple gas turbine cycle and a single-stage reheat steam turbine.
257
Conclusions
Upon taking into account all the data and principles observed and calculated from
the whole study and through an in-depth analysis of the results, the proponents have
concluded the following:
1. Based on the principles of choosing the location of the power plant and the
present zoning ordinance, the proposed location of Brgy. Bacong Ibaba, General
Luna, Quezon is acceptable.
2. The equipment chosen for each design option varies upon the requirement of each
design, such as a combination of gas and steam turbines, condenser, compressor,
generator, pumps, open feed water heaters, and a heat recovery steam generator.
3. All design options passed the environmental considerations for a combined cycle
power plant, given that all are economical as the plant releases less emissions as
compared to other power plants such as coal and diesel.
4. Considering the economical aspects of the design options, the design option 1 has
the highest value since it utilizes less equipment. Whereas based on the technical
aspects, the design option 2 has the best technical aspect. On the other hand,
design option 3 has the best environmental consideration since it uses less mass of
fuel.
5. Comparing the results found from the three aspects using the method of Pareto
Optimum analysis based on the overall cycle thermal efficiency, mass of fuel,
payback period, net present value, and rate of return, the best design option is
chosen. As such, design option 2 is selected with a percentage of 72.77864449%.
258
Recommendations
After completing the capstone project for the proposed 155 MW combined cycle
power plant and evaluating the selected design option, it was discovered that there are
still opportunities for improvement to boost the efficiency and ensure optimal
performance of the power plant. As a result, the proponents suggest the following
recommendations:
1. Improving the accuracy of the forecasted demand load may be achieved by
providing more detailed and current data on the electrical consumption from the
target location.
2. In order to create a detailed and reliable plant layout, the proponents should
conduct an actual visit to the site location.
3. Determining a more accurate plant capacity is performed by obtaining additional
data from the current Quezelco I procurement plan regarding the percentage of
system losses and reserve capacity.
4. For reducing the discrepancy between the value of a specific equipment's
specifications and the computed value used as the selected parameter, it is
important to conduct additional research on equipment selection.
5. Obtaining a more precise percentage of return on investment can be reached by
conducting further research into the equipment costs and the factors utilized in
computing those costs.
6. To increase the reliability of designing a combined power plant, it is advisable to
acquire the insights of a mechanical engineer who can provide an expert opinion
for the detailed data of the technical aspects involved in the project.
259
References
(2017). Philippines Natural Gas. Worldometer.
https://www.worldometers.info/gas/philippines-natural-gas/
Department of Energy. (2016). Investment Opportunities in the Philippine Energy Sector.
https://www.doe.gov.ph/sites/default/files/pdf/e_ipo/investment_opportunities_phi
l_energy_sector.pdf
BSWM - Department of Agriculture. (2020). National Mapping, Characterization and
Coastal Areas Affected by Salinity.
https://www.google.com/url-Salinity-2020-Technical-Report-Quezon.pdf
Crismundo, K. (2022, November 28). 6 power plants on outage; brownouts expected in
Luzon grid. Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1189589
Petrakopoulou, F., Robinson, A., & Olmeda-Delgado, M. (2020). Impact of climate
change on fossil fuel power-plant efficiency and water use. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 273, 122816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122816
Velasco, M. (2022, November 28). Luzon grid power supply tumbles into ‘red alert.
Manila Bulletin.
https://mb.com.ph/2022/11/28/luzon-grid-power-supply-tumbles-into-red-alert/

Combined Cycle Power Plant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combined Cycle Power Plant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A PROPOSED DESIGN OF 155 MW COMBINED STEAM AND GAS POWER

PLANT SYSTEM AT BRGY. BACONG IBABA, GENERAL LUNA, QUEZON

CASTILLO, FERNAN BONG B.

Table No. Title Page

1 Number of Consumer of QUEZELCO I in the year 2016 14

Figure No. Title Page

1 Project Location Site 5

generates electricity from primary sources, either conventional or alternative, which is

then transmitted and distributed to the consumers.

The country's growing population necessitates an increase in electricity

Philippines still experience uninterrupted power supply through rotational brown-outs.

outages, resulting in brownouts as expected by the Department of Energy to the Luzon

depleted, making the use of renewable or alternative energy sources highly

steam, an example of alternative energy. Since the Philippines is surrounded by bodies of

on availability of energy, increasing consumer demand, and worsening cases of

significant amount of output power, potentially increasing the system's efficiency.

Rationale of the Design

Quezon is one of the provinces located in the CALABARZON region of the

5410.03 miles. It comprises four legislative districts with a total of 39 municipalities,

region and 3.04% of the Luzon island group total population.

province experiences unscheduled power outages resulting in loss of revenue in the

warning, referring to the condition of severely strained power reserves due to

population in the country.

Furthermore, providing additional power plants will be a great solution to address

plants must be able to supply enough electricity demanded by a specific community. In

and utilizes that heat in power generation.

compared to conventional ones.

Energy solution companies have established a number of projects to provide

communities with an uninterrupted power supply. One solution is to build electrical

The province of Quezon comprises four legislative districts with a total of 39

electricity supplied to the Luzon Grid by three distribution facilities, QUEZELCO I,

in the figure below.

Figure 1. Project Location Site

Figure 2. Salinity of Soil

According to the Bureau of Soils and Water Management (2020), as illustrated in

Figure 3 shows the marketing area of the power plant.

QUEZELCO I, namely Agdangan, Alabat, Atimonan, Buenavista, Calauag, Catanauan,

Sugar, commercial, and others such as transportation and street lights.

in Pagbilao, Quezon, it can be supplied to Meanwhile, the transportation facility also

plays an important role in the operation of the plant, as shown in Figure 4.

electricity to the municipalities supplied by Quezon I Electric Cooperative (QUEZELCO

to the QUEZELCO I main facility.

Figure 6. Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to QUEZELCO 1 Main

QUEZELCO I, which is traveled by land at 33 km at an estimated time of 41 minutes. On

Figure 7. Access of the Combined Cycle Power Plant to Tayabas Bay

sensitive to changes due to this range of temperature.

In addition, a zoning ordinance was implemented by the government for

Highway 26 (AH26), sometimes referred to as the Pan-Philippine Highway, Radial Road

Figure 9. Land Area for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba

meters above sea level.

Brgy. Bacong Ibaba.

Figure 11. Slope for Brgy. Bacong Ibaba

Municipality is suitable for agriculture and urban development.

adjacent municipality and the Tayabas Bay.

Figure 12. Administrative Map of General Luna, Quezon

consumer as obtained from the procurement plant of QUEZELCO I.

Figure 13. Classification of QUEZELCO I Consumers

The percentage for each category of consumer, including residential, commercial,

number of connections, residential consumers are the highest percentage of consumers,

used as a basis for load demand projection.

Number of Consumer of QUEZELCO I in the year 2016

Consumer Type Number of Consumers

Number of Consumer of QUEZELCO I in the year 2016