Combined Cycle Power Plant Capital Cost Estimates: Electric Power Research Institute

Combined Cycle Power Plant
Capital Cost Estimates EPRI

EPRI AF-610
Keywords:
State-of-the-Art 77-402
Capital Costs
Final Report
, Combined Cycle
December 1977
Gas Turbine
Oil-Fired Power Plant
Site Sensitivity
Prepared by
Bechtel Power Corporation
San Francisco, California
I/'
ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States
Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability
or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference
herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency
thereof.
D IS C L A IM E R
Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image

products. Images are produced from the best available
original document.
Combined Cycle Power Plant
Capital Cost Estimates
AF-610
State-of-the-Art 77-402
Final Report, December 1977
Prepared by
,5°
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION
San Francisco Power Division
50 Beale Street
RO. Box 3965
San Francisco, California 94119
Prepared for
Electric Power Research Institute

3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
EPRI Project Manager

Stanley Vejtasa
Fossil Fuel and Advanced Systems Division
DISTRIBUTION QF THIS DOCUMENT IS U

LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation, as

an account of work sponsored by the Electric Power Research
Institute, Inc. (EPRI). Neither EPRI, members of EPRI,
Bechtel, nor any person acting on behalf of either: (a) makes
any warranty or representation, express or implied, with re
spect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the
information contained in this report, or that the use of
any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in
this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (b)
assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for
damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus,
method, or process disclosed in this report.
ABSTRACT
Capital cost estimates have been prepared for oil-fueled, high

efficiency combined gas turbine/stearn turbine power plants in
five regions of the United States: Great Lakes, Southwest,
Western (at two locations), Northeast, and Southeast. These
plants are designed to burn liquid fuels, either distillate
(kerosene and No. 2 distillate) or ash-bearing (blended
residuals, crudes, and heavy residuals).
Plants have either a nominal net combined power output of

250 MWe for a single unit installation or 500 MWe for a two
unit installation consisting of two 250 MWe units. All plants
are designed to meet present day environmental regulations,
EPA New Source Performance Standards; and in addition, one of
the Western plants--located in the Southern California Metro
politan Area (Los Angeles)--is designed to meet the special
pollutant limitations in that area.
Capital costs for the 250 MWe plant expressed in 1976 dollars
range from $306/kW for a Southwestern plant burning distillate
fuel to $417/kW for a remote Western plant burning residual
fuel. The costs in $/kW for the 500 MWe plants are about five
percent lower. Cost estimates were based on information from
recent and current construction projects for both conventional
and combined cycle plants, and incorporate present day criteria
regarding releases to the environment. The costs also include
an allowance for funds during construction and other owner
costs.
Trends in future development of combined cycle plants are also
discussed.
iii
Blank Page
CONTENTS
COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
PAGES
INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY (Purpose of study, and ground
rules for establishing six plants: summary of plant xi
arrangement and design, and summary of capital cost
estimates)
1. POWER PLANT DATA (Power plant data and fuel analyses 1-1
established for the plants to be estimated)
2. PLANT NO. 1 - GREAT LAKES LOCATION - CURRENT EPA 2-1

STANDARDS (BASE DESIGN) (A detailed description of
this plant established as the base plant)
3. PLANT NO. 2 - SOUTHWEST LOCATION - CURRENT EPA 3-1
STANDARDS (Description of this plant by comparison
with Plant No. 1)
4. PLANT NO. 3 - WESTERN LOCATION - CURRENT EPA STANDARDS 4-1

(Description of this plant by comparison with Plant
No. 1)
5. PLANT NO. 4 - WESTERN LOCATION - METROPOLITAN ZONE 5-1

(L.A.) STANDARDS (Description of this plant by compar
ison with Plant No. 1)
6. PLANT NO. 5 - NORTHEAST LOCATION - CURRENT EPA 6-1
with Plant No. 1)
7. PLANT NO. 6 - SOUTHEAST LOCATION - CURRENT EPA 7-1
with Plant No. 1)
8. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES (Basis and qualifications for 8-1
estimates and Order-of-Magnitude Estimate Summaries)
9. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS (Discussion of anticipated devel- 9-1

opments for combined cycle plants)
APPENDIX (See following page for listing of Figures

in Appendix)
v
Blank Page
FIGURES
TEXT
FIGURE TEXT
NO ■ PAGE
9A SIMPLE OPEN-CYCLE GAS TURBINE NET EFFICIENCY 9-2
VARIATION WITH COMPRESSOR PRESSURE RATIO
FOR VARIOUS TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURES
9B SIMPLE OPEN-CYCLE GAS TURBINE SPECIFIC 9-3

POWER VARIATION WITH COMPRESSOR PRESSURE
RATIO FOR VARIOUS TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURES
9C TREND OF COMBINED-CYCLE HEAT RATES 9-5
APPENDIX APPENDIX
FIGURE PAGE
1A PLANT LOCATIONS AND SEISMIC ZONES A-l
IB RELATIVE PERFORMANCE CURVES A-2
1C RELATIVE MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS A_3
2 A-1 PLOT PLAN SINGLE UNIT DISTILLATE FUEL A-4
2 A-2 PLOT PLAN DOUBLE UNIT DISTILLATE FUEL A-5
2 A-3 PLOT PLAN SINGLE UNIT RESIDUAL FUEL A-6
2 A-4 PLOT PLAN DOUBLE UNIT RESIDUAL FUEL A-7
2B- 1 DIAGRAM OF POWER PLANT PROCESS A-8

2C-1 DISTILLATE FUEL OIL SYSTEM FOR 250 MW PLANT A-9
2C-2 RESIDUAL FUEL OIL SYSTEM FOR 250 MW PLANT A-10

3A S02 EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS A-ll
3B PARTICULATE EMISSION AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY A-12

STANDARDS
3C NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT AIR A-13

QUALITY STANDARDS
3D SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES A-14

AND STANDARDS FOR LIQUID WASTE DISCHARGES
3E SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES A-15

AND STANDARDS FOR HEAT TO THE WATERS OF THE
USA
vii
Blank Page
TABLES
TABLE PAGE
NO. NO.
1-1 SITE DATA 1-8
1-2 TYPICAL PROPERTIES, LIQUID FUELS 1-9

1-3 PLANT OPERATION DATA 1-10
8-1 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE SUMMARIES FOR 8-6

A SINGLE UNIT, 250 MW, PLANT
8-2 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE SUMMARIES FOR 8-7

A TWO UNIT, 500 MW, PLANT
8- 3 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE 8-8
SUMMARIES ESCALATED TO 1985, 1990 & 1995
9- 1 IDENTIFICATION OF POINTS PLOTTED ON FIGURE 9-6
9C, TREND OF COMBINED CYCLE HEAT RATES
ix
Blank Page
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA has re
tained the Bechtel Power Corporation, San Francisco, CA to pre
pare capital cost estimates for standard combined-cycle power
plants in six locations of the United States. Each of the plants
will be the oil-fueled, high efficiency, preengineered and pack
aged plants commercially available in the U.S. in late 1976.
This report and the cost estimates are intended to be repre
sentative of plants offered by all U.S. suppliers and not based
on plants offered by any particular U.S. manufacturer.
Plant megawatt output was established as a nominal 250 MWe net
for the single unit plant and a nominal 500 MWe for the double
unit plant. Actual power output for a plant at a known alti
tude and ambient temperature would likely be different. For
actual future plants, of 250 MWe and 500 MWe output, other
combinations of units might be more advantageous for the Owner.
This study presents the state-of-the-art of combined-cycle plants
in 1976 as part of a broad examination of the total costs to
produce electricity by different methods now and in the next
twenty years. EPRI will use this study as a reference document
to improve industry and public understanding of such present and
future electric power costs.
Plant Locations, Design Conditions and Fuels
Six plants were established for this study in the regions and
near the cities listed below.
Plant Region State Nearest City
1 Great Lakes WI Kenosha

2 Southwest TX Freeport
3 Western OR Hermiston
4 Western CA (So.) Los Angeles
5 Northeast PA Bethlehem
6 Southeast GA Albany
Four of the plants. No.'s 1, 3, 5 and 6, are at the same loca

tions as the plants in the report, EPRI AF-342, Project SOA 76-329,
Coal-fired Power Plant Capital Cost Estimates, so that direct
cost comparisons can be made. Plant No. 2 in Texas is located
in an area of interest for such plants, and Plant No. 4 is lo
cated in the South Coast Air Basin, Southern California Metro
politan Zone Rule 67 which has stricter rules and regulations
xi
governing emissions than the National Standards.
All plants are to meet current (1976) requirements of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for new Source Perform
ance Standards (NSPS) or the stricter rules and regulations at
the locations of Plants 3 and 4.
Fuels for the plants were established by EPRI as distillates

(Kerosene and No. 2 Distillate), or ash-bearing fuels (Blended
residuals, crudes and heavy residuals) with each plant burning
either but not both. These fuels were assumed to be commer
cially available by rail delivery at each plant location.
Natural gas was not considered as a fuel since it was assumed
to be generally unavailable.
This study does not consider the question of the political or
economic desirability of burning kerosene or No. 2 distillate
in the U.S. at this time, though some questions have been
raised about the use of such fuels for producing power.
Cost estimates for the plants burning the distillate fuels are
made in detail as base estimates. Overall cost adjustments
are made to these base estimates to reflect the additional costs
for the plants burning the ash bearing fuels.
SUMMARY
Plant Arrangements
Plant arrangement of the major equipment depends, on large mea
sure, on the supplier of the major equipment. For example, for
the 250 MWe plant, one major supplier would offer eight gas tur
bine generators and two heat recovery steam generators (HRSG's).
Other offerings could be three gas turbines, three gas turbine
generators and three HRSG's; or eight gas turbines, four gas
turbine generators and four HRSG's; or two gas turbines with two
gas turbine generators and two HRSG's could be developed. All
plants would have one steam turbine generator. Balance of
plant facilities are not significantly different from one manu
facturer to the other. All gas turbines would have bypass
stacks for the exhaust gas.
This report and its cost estimates cover a composite plant, rep
resentative of available technology for the major equipment and
balance of plant facilities. This report and its cost estimates
do not distinguish between the different suppliers and their
plant arrangements, or between relatively small differences in
generation output, heat rate, and control system performance.
Some of the latter facilities such as the cooling towers do re
flect site related differences in performance and cost. Site
situations requiring special equipment for handling airborne
particulates-sand and dust-or airborne chemicals-salt spray and
chemical fumes-are not considered.
xii
Requirements for Fuels
Physical and chemical properties of the liquid fuels to be

burned in the gas turbines must satisfy rather rigid specifi
cations for both operational considerations and to meet emis
sions standards. These strict requirements apply not only to
procurement of fuel to specification, and prevention of con
tamination during storage, handling and treatment, but also to
the inlet air into the turbines and to the water or steam that
is used for NO^ control or injection to augment plant output.
Federal emissions standards can be met when using most distil

lates, but the use of blended residuals and crudes requires
limitations, not only on sulfur and trace metals but also on
ash, as discussed more fully in this report.
Emissions standards in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area are

approximately three times stricter than the Federal standard,
and therefore are even more restrictive on the fuels which can
be used.
Capital Cost Estimates
Capital cost estimate summaries for the six plants at July 1,
1976 price levels are presented in Section 8 and summarized
below. Costs include a 5 percent allowance for Other Owners'
Costs, and an 8 percent Allowance for Funds During Construc
tion (AFDC).
For Single Unit Plants
with Unfired HRSG's
Region Burning Burning
& Distillate Re sidual
Plant Location Fuels Fuels
MW $ $/ MW $ $/
Net Millions KW Net Millions KW
1 Great Lakes, 272 $88.0 $324 258 $ 94.5 $366

Kenosha, WI
2 Sou thwe s t, 273 83.6 306 259 89.4 345

Freeport, TX
3 Western, 1) 265 97 . 1 366 251 104.6 417

Hermiston, OR 2) 265 93.2 352 251 100.1 399
4 Western, 275 86.0 313 261 92.4 3) 354

Los Angeles, CA
5 Northeast , 272 96.4 354 258 103.9 403

Bethlehem, PA
6 Southeast, 270 87.4 324 256 93.4 365
Albany, GA
1) At this remote location
2) Adjustment for a Western Site not in a Remote Location.
3) This plant is not permitted under the present regulations.
See pgs 1-3 and 5-2
xiii
For Two Unit Plants
with Unfired HRSG's
Region Burning Burning
& Distillate Residual
Plant Location Fuels Fuels
MW $ $/ MW $ $/
Net Millions KW Net Millions KW
1 Great Lakes, 544 $168.0 $309 516 $180.7 $350
Kenosha, WI
2 Southwest 546 159.7 292 518 171.0 330

Freeport, TX
3 Western 1) 530 182.3 344 502 197.0 392

Hermiston, OR 2) 530 175.2 331 502 188.7 376
4 Western 550 165.0 300 522 177.4 3) 340 3)
Los Angeles, CA
5 Northeast, 544 181.9 334 516 196.7 381
Bethlehem, PA
6 Southeast, 540 164.5 305 512 176.3 344
Albany, GA
1) At this remote location

Adjustment for a Western Site not in a Remote Location.
3) This plant is not permitted under the present regula
tions. See Pgs. 1-3 and 5-2.
Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 1, the base plant, are sub
ject to the scope descriptions in Sections 1 and 2, and the
qualifications as stated in Section 8. They reflect the cost of
labor and labor related factors and wage rates expected at a lo
cation within commuting distance of a populated center.
Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 2, 5% lower than Plant No.
1, reflect a large decrease in labor and labor related costs
at this location even though the site sensitive cooling towers
are estimated to be higher in cost.
Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 3 are 10% more than Plant
No. 1, if the plant is considered to be at a remote location.
These estimates reflect the site sensitive costs for a longer
access road and railroad to the site and higher labor costs for
incentives to attract and hold craftsmen in the numbers and
skills required to build the plant.
xiv
If the plant site is not in a remote location, the capital costs
estimates for Plant No. 3 are only 5% more than Plant No. 1. It
is more likely that a plant of this size and type would be lo
cated near a populated center as are the other plants in this
study.
Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 4, 2% lower than Plant

No. 1, reflect slightly lower labor costs and reduced site
sensitive costs.
Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 5, 9% more than Plant No.
1, reflect a significant increase in labor costs and an increase
in site sensitive costs.
Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 6, 2% lower than Plant No.
1, reflect a large decrease in labor costs and increased site
sensitive costs for a longer access road and railroad and a
larger cooling tower.
xv
1.0 POWER PLANT DATA
Power plant data are established for the estimates and

discussed in this section for the six plants described
in the previous section. Data are developed from Bechtel's
current experience in the design and construction of
both fossil fired and combined cycle power plants in
the United States and in Mexico.
1.1 Site Data
Particular locations were selected in each region that

would satisfy the requirements for a combined cycle
power plant site. See Appendix, Figure 1A for these
locations. Factors for selecting the sites include
emission and noise limitations, the availability of plant
makeup water, proximity to major railroads, highways,
population centers and transmission systems, and a land
area of 50 acres with good foundation conditions.
In the Western region, plant locations in urban and

remote areas have been considered. It may be unlikely
that combined cycle plants will be located in remote
areas; usually they have been located nearer the heavy
peaking load areas for obvious economical reasons.
After selection of the plant locations, data for each

site was assumed as given in Table 1-1.
Type of foundations assumed are piles in the Great Lakes

and in the Southwest region and spread footings in
the other regions. These foundation types are believed
to be typical for sites in these regions. For any site,
an extensive subsurface exploration program and analysis
would be performed before such a determination is made.
Seismic zones affect the plant design and costs. Zone 1

would be typical for the Great Lakes, Northeast and
Southeast regions, though some plant locations might
be in Zone 2. Zone 2 or 3 would be typical of the Western
region. Plant 2 in the Southwest is in Seismic Zone 0.
See Appendix A, Figure 1A for location of these zones.
Plant elevations and ambient temperatures can have a

significant effect on the plant performance, particularly
at high elevations in the West. For this study, however,
elevations at the selected sites are practically the
same and have little effect on the cost or performance.
The ambient temperatures at the different sites are noted
in Table 1-3.
1-1
1.2 Plant Operation Data
For this study, commercially available equipment was

selected so that the plant output would be approximately
250 MW net for the base plant burning residual fuel.
Table 1-3 provides a summary of plant operation at the
July mean high temperature at each of the six sites for
units fueled by both the Distillate No. 2 diesel oil and
the Residual No. 6. Relative performance curves which
show the effect of ambient temperature and altitude on
the heat rate and power output are shown in Figure IB
in the Appendix.
The distillate fueled plants are the base plants for the
estimates. The alternates to the base plants are fueled
with blended residuals and crudes, and heavy residuals.
Fuels are assumed to be received by rail in tank cars

and unloaded and stored. A 60-day storage, based on
operation at 50 percent capacity would be provided for
either fuel. Fuel oil systems are described in Section
2 as are other plant systems. Environmental requirements
are described below.
1.3 Environmental and Noise Requirements
Plants in this study will satisfy the environmental and

noise requirements at each location. Plant emissions
standards would be met by imposing restrictions on the
fuel that can be burned, rather than providing precipi
tators or flue gas desulfurization facilities or other
methods. Restrictions on discharges of waste liquids
and other pollutants would be satisfied by plant design
features and treatment of the wastes. Noise abatement
features would be installed to meet requirements prin
cipally by installing silencers on intake and discharge
systems.
1.3.1 Emission Standards
Emissions and ambient air quality standards for both
Federal EPA and State of California, South Coast Air
Basin are given in Figures 3A, 3B and 3C in the Ap
pendix and cover gaseous emissions of sulfur dioxides
( SC>2 ) , par t iculat es and opacity, and nitrogen oxides
(NC>x) • Effluent limitations for liquid waste dis
charges and for heat are given in figures 3D and 3E.
1-2
Standards for sulfur dioxide emissions, as SO2, are 0.80
Ib/million Btu for Federal EPA-NSPS and 200 Ib/hour for
each release point or gas turbine for California's South
Coast Air Basin, Los Angeles Area (CA(LA)). Oregon also
has a severe restriction on SO2 emissions from plants
burning distillates of 0.50% by weight of S in the fuel.
The restrictions on plants burning residuals is the same
as NSPS.
Maximum S content by weight permitted by NSPS translate,

for all the plants in this study, to approximately 0.75%;
in addition, by Oregon for distillates to 0.50% and by
CA (LA) to 0.25%. Most typical distillates meet these
limits, but only blended residuals and crudes with low S
content can do so. Heavy residuals cannot meet the
CA (LA) requirements and can barely meet NSPS limitations.
For typical properties of these liquid fuels, see Table
1-2 .
Standards for nitrogen oxide emissions, as N0X, are 0.3

Ib/million Btu for NSPS, including Oregon, and 140 Ib/hr
for each release point or gas turbine for CA (LA) Rule 67.
Nitrogen in the fuel and oxygen and nitrogen in the intake
air are the sources of N0X, which come from the combus
tion process. Control of these emissions can be accom
plished by water injection into the gas turbine combustors,
rather than by any limitations on source materials.
Particulate emissions limitations are 0.1 Ib/million Btu

for NSPS, including Oregon, and 10 Ib/hr for each release
point or gas turbine for CA (LA) Rule 67. These limita
tions translate to approximately 1800 ppm for NSPS and
225 ppm for CA (LA). Since total stack particulate
emissions include all the following sources--ash content
and total sulfur in the fuel, vanadium and additives,
and other trace metals; non-combustible particulates in
the inlet air; solids from any injected steam or water,
and particulates from incomplete combustion--a detailed
study of each plant must be made to determine compliance.
Ash content of distillates is a maximum 50 ppm; see Table
1-2. Blended residuals have a maximum of 200 ppm and
heavy residuals can have 1,000 ppm. Other source con
tributions of ash will add to the above. The conclusion
is that all blended residuals and crudes, and heavy re
siduals are eliminated as fuels in the Los Angeles Basin,
not only because of sulfur content, but also by ash content.
1-3
To meet the acceptable plume opacity levels, the hydrogen
content of the fuel needs to be limited to a minimum of
not less than approximately 12% for distillate fuels and
11% for the residual fuels.
In general, the higher the hydrogen content in the fuel,
the lower the smoke level.
1.3.2 Liquid Wastes and Disposal

Liquid wastes from the power plant are from the following
sources:
(a) Raw water clarifier/filter system waste
(b) Demineralizer regeneration waste (neutralized)
(c) Cooling tower blowdown
(d) Building floor drains
(e) Yard rainfall run-off (uncontaminated)
(f) Sanitary wastes
(g) Switchyard drains and wastes
(h) Wash water
It is assumed that these wastes would be disposed of
as follows:
Items (a), (b), (c) and (d) - to either a holding

tank or to the municipal disposal system. The
quality of each flow would be monitored, and the
waste water would be treated for pH. The decanted
overflow would be allowed to reenter the natural
drainage system.
Item (e) - to the normal drainage system.
Item (f) - to primary and secondary treatment facil

ities. The effluent would be allowed to run off
into the natural drainage system. The effluent
would be monitored for suspended solids and bacteria.
Item (g) - to an oil separator and holding tank,
and upon checking the quality of effluent, into
the natural drainage system.
Item (h) - to the cooling tower basin as supplemen

tary makeup.
The above methods are in line with current federal
regulations. Approval of appropriate federal, state
and local authorities would be necessary prior to
implementation. See Figures 3D and 3E in the Appen
dix for statements of the federal regulations.
1-4
1.3.3 Solid Wastes and Disposal
It is anticipated that there will be no solid wastes

in the normal operation of the plant.
1.4 Fuel Contaminants
In addition to the limitations on the fuel discussed in

the above Section 1.3.1, other restrictions must be im
posed on the fuel to meet operation and maintenance con
siderations .
The plant performance can be affected by five critical

trace metal contaminants. Sodium, potassium, vanadium,
lead and calcium should be generally limited to the fol
lowing maximum allowable concentrations in the fuel oil
in ppm.
Distillates Ash Bearing Fuels
Sodium plus potassium 1 1

Vanadium(untreated) 0.5
Vanadium (treated 3:1 100 - 500
by weight-Mg/V)
Lead 1 1
Calcium 2 10
Higher contaminent levels bring about increased corrosion

of turbine blading and deterioration of other hot gas path
parts along with excessive deposits. Thus there will like
ly be more maintenance and machine downtime.
Distillate fuels, as refined, see Table 1-2 for typical

properties, normally meet these low trace metal contam
inant levels, and if not further contaminated, can be
used without further treatment. Ash bearing fuels, on
the other hand, also See Table 1-2, usually require pre
treatment before use, consisting of preheating, water
washing and addition of a vanadium inhibitor. The pre
heating lowers the fuel viscosity, and water washing can
extract the soluble sodium .potassium and calcium salts,
though lead and vanadium content are not affected. The
corrosive action of vanadium in a quantity exceeding only
0.5 ppm, can be inhibited by adding certain magnesium
compounds to the fuel. However, two problems are associ
ated with this. First, the magnesium additive can be
deposited in the turbine. Second, it becomes part of the
ash emissions from the turbine which are limited by air
quality standards.
1-5
1.5 Other Fuel Requirements
Natural gas is an ideal fuel for a gas turbine, because

it is clean, special treatment is not required, and it
is easily injected and burned in a combustor with rapid
flame propagation rates and a high temperature. For
example, more than half of the G.E. industrial turbines
delivered through 1972 burned natural gas. However, for
this study it was assumed that natural gas would be ex
cluded as a utility gas turbine fuel for new installa
tions, as present supplies seem to be limited.
After natural gas, petroleum oils are the next most widely
used gas turbine fuels. Light distillates are preferred
for technical reasons, but because of price and avail
ability, heavy distillates and even crude oils, are being
used as fuels.
The blended residuals, crudes and heavy residuals are
rather viscous at ambient temperatures and require heat
ing systems to reduce viscosities to acceptable levels
for pumping and atomization in the combustors.
These fuels also require cleaning to reduce alkali metals
or ash content. Alkali metals can be removed by water
washing and the addition of inhibitors followed by cen
trifuging to remove the water. Ash solids can also be
removed by electrostatic precipitation of the oil.
1.6 Maintenance Requirements
Maintenance requirements and costs for combined-cycle

power plants depend on three basic factors: type of
fuel used, frequency of starting, and load duty. See
Figure 1 C in the Appendix for plots of the relative
effect of these factors on maintenance costs. Location
and content of intake air can also affect maintenance
and can require special filtering but this is not dis
cussed here .
The life of gas turbine hot parts depends to a large ex

tent on the radiant energy level in the combustion sec
tion. This radiant energy level is dependent on the type
of fuel and the degree of fuel atomization. In addition,
fuels can contain abrasive contaminants that wear or
plug fuel pumps and metering valves, or active metals
that can corrode hot parts. Therefore, the type of fuel '
burned and the amount of treatment before reaching the
gas turbine will have a significant effect upon mainte
nance costs. Figure 1C, top curve, indicates a factor
of three in the difference in maintenance costs between
residual oil and natural gas usage.
1-6
Frequency and rate of starting the gas turbine of a com
bined cycle power plant also affect component life and
therefore maintenance costs. As indicated on Figure 1C,
middle curve, from one start every 100 operating hours
to one start every hour, the relative maintenance cost
can vary by a factor of six.
Load duty does not markedly affect maintenance for tur
bines operated in the operating range up to 100 percent
of machine base load. Figure 1C, bottom curve, shows
collective experience for General Electric gas turbines,
including the drastic increase in maintenance cost re
sulting from excessive loading beyond the base load.
1-7
TABLE 1-1
SITE DATA
PLANT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6
REGION Great Lakes Southwes t Western West ern Northeast Southeast
STATE Wisconsin Texa s Oregon California Pennsylvania Georgia
NEAREST TOWN Keno sha Freeport H e rmis ton Los Angeles Bethlehem Albany
Road, Miles 1 1 5 0.5 2 5

Railway, Miles 2 2 5 0.5 4 5
Distance from Major

Water, Miles 6 2 5 2 5
Lake Gulf of Uma tilla Pacific Delaware Flint
Michigan Mexic o River Oc ean River River
Raw Water Supply^
Primary Source Wells Wells Wells Wells Wells Wells
Backup Source Muncipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal Municipal
Connec tion Connec tion Conn ec tion Connec tion Connect ion Connec tion
Elevation above Sea Level,

f t. 588 Sea Level 621 275 399 196
Seismic Zone 1 0 2 4 1 1
Environmental Regulations EPA EPA EPA & Oregon Calif ornia EPA EPA
Foundation Type Timber Piles Timber Piles Spread Spread Spread Spread
& Spread Ftgs & Spread Ftgs Footings Footings Footings Footings
Raw Water Supply Pipeline,

10" 0 1 Mil e 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mil e 1 Mile
Cooling Towers Type Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical Mechanical

Draft Draft Draft Draf t Draf t Draf t
1) Estimated 1,600 gpm for the Single 250 MWe Unit

TABLE 1-2
TYPICAL PROPERTIES, LIQUID FUELS
TRUE DISTILLATES ASH-BEARING FUELS
BLENDED
NO. 2 RESIDUALS HEAVY
KEROSENE DISTILLATE AND CRUDES RESIDUALS
Specific Gravity, 100° F (38° C) 0.78/0.83 0.82/0.88 0.80/0.92 0.92/1.05
Viscosity, cSt, 100° F (38° C) 1 . 4/2.2 2.0/4.0 2/100 100/1800
Flash Point, °F 130/160 150/200 50/200 175/265
Flash Point, °C 55/70 55/95 10/95 80/130
Pour Point, °F -50 -10/30 15/110 15/95
Pour Point, °C -45 -20/0 -10/45 -10/35
High Heating Value, kcal/kg 10,700/10,950 10,500/10,950 10,500/10,900 10,150/10,500
High Heating Value, Btu/lb 19,300/19,700 19,000/19,600 19,000/19,400 18,300/18,900
Filterable Dirt, % max 0.002 0.005 0.05 0.2
Carbon Residue (10% Bottoms), % 0.01/0.1 0.03/0.3 - -
Carbon Residue (100% Sample), % - - 0.3/3 2/10
Sulfur, % 0.01/0.1 0.1/0.8 0.2/3 0.5/4
Nitrogen, % 0.002/0.01 0.005/0.06 0.06/0.2 0.05/0.9
Hydrogen , % 12.8/14.5 12.2/13.2 12.0/13.2 10/12.5
Ash (Fuel as Delivered), ppm 1/5 2/50 25/200 100/1000
Ash (Inhibited), ppm - - 25/250 100/7000
Trace Metal Contaminents,

Untreated
Sodium plus potassium, ppm 0/0.5 0/1 1/100 1/350
Vanadium, ppm 0/0.1 0/0.1 0.1/80 5/400
Lead, ppm 0/0.5 0/1 0/1 0/25
Calcium, ppm 0/1 0/2 0/10 0/50

TABLE 1-3
PLANT OPERATION DATA
ISO
PLANT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Standard
SITE LOCATION Kenosha Freeport Hermiston Los Angeles Bethlehem Albany -
ALTITUDE, ft 588 Sea Level 627 275 399 196 Sea Leve!
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE, psia 14.39 14.70 14.37 14.55 14.49 14.60 14.7
AIR TEMPERATURE, °F 83 90 92 83 85 92 59
(July Mean High)
Notes RATED PERFORMANCE ON NO. 2 DIESEL OIL
GROSS POWER, 1 281 282 274 284 281 279 304
AUXILIARY POWER, MW 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
NET POWER, MW 272 273 265 275 272 270 295
FUEL FLOW, Ib/hr 116,833 117,389 114,192 118,148 117,098 116,037 126,388
(HHV = 19,430 Btu/lb)
GROSS HEAT RATE, Btu/KWh 3 8,079 8,038 8,098 8,083 8,097 8,081 8,078
NET HEAT RATE, Btu/KWh 3 8,346 8,355 8,373 8,348 8,365 8,350 8,324
NET PLANT EFFICIENCY, % 40.9 40.9 40.8 40.9 40.8 40.9 41.0
RATED PERFORMANCE ON NO. 6 RESIDUAL OIL
GROSS POWER, MW 1 268 269 261 271 268 266 290
AUXILIARY POWER, MW 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
NET POWER, MW 258 259 251 261 258 256 280
FUEL FLOW, Ib/hr 118,874 119,440 116,187 120,212 119,144 118,064 128,596
(HHV = 18,300 Btu/lb)
GROSS HEAT RATE, Btu/KWh 3 8,117 8,125 8,146 8,118 8,136 8,122 8,115
NET HEAT RATE, Btu/KWh 3 8,432 8,439 8,471 8,429 8,451 8,440 8,405
NET PLANT EFFICIENCY, % 40.5 40.4 40.3 40.5 40.4 40.4 40.6
Notes1 2 3
1 For purposes of this study the effect of differences in cooling tower performance
and condenser vacuum conditions have not been considered.
2 Could be plus or minus 1 Megawatt.
3 Based on higher heating value.
1-10
2.0 PLANT NO. 1 - GREAT LAKES LOCATION - CURRENT EPA
STANDARDS (BASE DESIGN)
The plants at this location would be considered typical

for present day oil-fueled high efficiency combined
cycle power plants in the Great Lakes region. Plant emis
sions would satisfy the current Federal EPA-NSPS Standards
for all pollutants by restrictions on the fuels that can
be burned. All fuels are assumed to be commercially
available and delivered by train to this plant site.
A detailed description of these plants are provided in

this section, and, for the purpose of this study, they
will be considered as the base designs. Plants at
other locations are described by comparison to this
plant.
2.1 General Plant Description
For this study, the plants are assumed to be located in

Wisconsin, near Kenosha, approximately six miles from
Lake Michigan. See Figure 1A in the Appendix. Site elevation
is assumed to be 588 ft. above sea level in Seismic Zone 1.
Land area required for the plants is about 50 acres which
would accommodate additional plants of the same power
output.
A one mile long road and two mile railroad spur are
assumed to be required for access. The raw water makeup
for the plant is approximately 1,600 gpm, and wells are
assumed to be the primary supply source, supported by a
connection to the Kenosha Municipal Water System.
Soil conditions at the site are assumed to be such that

wooden friction piles approximately 50 ft. long are required
to support the foundations of the steam turbine generator
and condenser, and the main transformers. However, other
plant equipment and facilities will be supported on spread
footings.
As a minimum, the following codes would govern the plant

design:
ASME Boiler Code

ANSI Power Piping Code
National Electric Code
NFPA Code
OSHA regulations
EPA Federal Standards
Uniform Building Code
Local regulatory agency guidelines
2-1
2.2 Plant Arrangements
Four plants are considered at this location for this
study—a single unit plant, nominal 250 MW burning distil
late fuels; a double unit, nominal 500 MW plant, (two-
250 MW units) burning distillate fuels; and the same two
plants burning blended residuals and crudes and heavy
residuals.
Plot plans and plant arrangements are described below and
shown in the Appendix on Figures 2A-1, 2A-2, 2A-3 and 2A-4.
For simplicity in presentation, only two gas turbine gene

rators, each with a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG),
are pictured in these figures, but depending upon the sup
plier of the major equipment, different numbers of gas
turbines and arrangements could be offered. For example,
the single unit 250 MW plant could have two, three, four
or eight gas turbines and two, three, or four gas turbine
driven electrical generators with the same number of HRSG's.
The gas turbines which are offered are basically of two
types, industrial single shaft gas turbines, and aircraft
derivative units with multi-shafts which have less power
output per turbine. All plants would have one condensing
steam turbine generator.
General arrangement areas of each plant include the main
equipment area with a heat exchanger and closed cooling
water area with control room adjacent to it. The water
treatment area and the switchyard are immediately adjacent
on either side. The cooling tower location is downwind from
the switchyard. Fuel receiving and unloading from railway
tank cars and fuel storage and pumping complete the layout
for the distillate burning plant. A closed loop road provides
access, and, for security, though not pictured in the figures,
a fence encloses the entire area.
Not shown, but included in the estimates are the plant ac
cess road and railroad, and the well field of 8 wells
providing the raw water makeup, and the connection to the
municipal water supply.
The plants burning the blended residuals and crudes and
heavy residuals also have a fuel treatment area and storage
and pumping for the treated residuals as shown in Figures
2A-3 and 2A-4.
2.3 Major Plant Equipment and Systems

Major components of this combined cycle plant are the com
mercially available engineered and packaged combination
of gas turbine generators, unfired heat recovery steam
generators (HRSG's), associated flue gas ducts and bypass
ducts and stacks, and a condensing steam turbine generator.
2-2
These components are designed for intermediate load duty
broadly defined as cyclic operation with annual load
factors between 20% and 80%. Units are capable of sus
tained full power operation, and it is expected that in
practice, the units will be operated at approximately
80-90% capacity, fifty to sixty percent of the year for
an overall capacity factor of 50%.
For a balanced design with a minimum plant heat rate

using unfired HRSG's, the gas turbine generators produce
approximately 73% of the total plant output with the
steam turbine producing the remaining 27%. A diagram
of the Power Plant Process for a representative plant is
shown in Figure 2B-1 in the Appendix. Typical temperature
and pressure conditions are shown.
Fuel is supplied to the gas turbines which exhaust to
the heat recovery boilers. These boilers are designed
with extended fin tube construction and produce approxi
mately 640,000 lbs/hr of steam at 900 psig, 850°F, which
is piped to the condensing steam turbine generator.
The gas turbines exhaust into a closed duct and dampers

control flow to either the bypass stack or HRSG depending
on the station operation condition. Bypass stacks,
though not absolutely necessary, are included to provide
all around operating flexibility and availability. In
fact, the gas turbines could be installed as peaking units
first, and the steam cycle added later without serious
service interruptions using the bypass stacks.
Though not incorporated in this study, supplementary fired

HRSG's are offered by some suppliers, where the turbine
exhaust gas is further heated by an oil-fired burner
inside the inlet ducts. This additional heat increases
the steam flow and plant kw output but with the penalty
of increased complexity in operation and maintenance.
A control system for automatic operation completes the

major equipment supply package. Installation would be
in a control room. A closed loop circulating water sys
tem with a cooling tower provides cooling water to the
condenser, and a condensate return system completes the
steam cycle.
Plant MW rating using commercially available equipment
would vary from supplier to supplier. However, for this
report, the calculated rated performance for the selected
fuel oils, as described in Section 1, for the single unit
plant burning No. 2 diesel oil as adjusted for the alti
tude and July mean high air temperature is 281 MW gross,
272 MW net. When the plant is fired with No. 6 residual
the MW ratings are 268 MW gross and 258 MW net.
2-3
2.4 Fuel Oil System
The fuel, either distillates or blended residuals, crudes

and heavy residuals, are assumed to be delivered to the
plant site in railroad tank cars. Offloading trackage
would consist of four railroad sidings for the 250 MW
plant and eight sidings for the 500 MW plant. Each sid
ing would have a minimum length of 425 ft. with a capa
city of 11 tank cars. Three additional sidings for the
single unit plant and six additional sidings for the
double unit plant are provided for storage of empty tank
cars .
Flow diagrams for the systems are shown in Figures 2C-1

and 2C-2 in the Appendix.
2.4.1 Fuel Oil Unloading
Located between pairs of tracks are approximately 24

inch diameter pipe manifolds for receiving the fuel
through stand pipes. These stand pipes are located
so that when the cars are properly positioned, all
cars may be connected to the stand pipes and unloaded
without moving them further.
The fuel would flow by gravity to the receiving tank.
(It is assumed that the residual fuel would be de
livered at 125°F). This underground tank has a ca
pacity of 30,000 bbls and, for the residual fuel, it
is fitted with steam coils to maintain and reheat the
fuel which remains in the tank between operations.
From this tank, the fuel is pumped into the fuel oil
storage tanks. Duplex fuel filters precede the pump
suet ion.
2.4.2 Fuel Oil Storage Tanks

The fuel oil storage tank would store a 60-day supply
with the plant operating at a 50% capacity factor.
For purposes of this study the single unit plant would
require one tank 202 ft. in diameter and 52 ft. high.
However, two half capacity tanks may be preferred for
operation and maintenance considerations. The double
unit plant requires two tanks of the same size. Each
tank has a capacity of 12,000,000 gallons or 286,000
bbls.
The average temperature of the residual storage tank
will be maintained at 85°F or above by receiving fuel
at 125°F and by recirculation through a header which
has a heating capacity of 6.25 x 10° Btu/hr, capable
of heating an oil flow at 750 gpm from 85°F to 125°F.
This flow rate is approximately three times the rate
of fuel usage of the single unit plant. The double
unit plant would have two tanks and two heaters.
2-4
2.4.3 Residual Fuel Treatment and Storage
Fuel flows by gravity to a treatment plant where a

separator operating in conjunction with a water wash
process effectively reduces the sodium and potassium
concentrations to 0.5 ppm or less from 500 gpm of
fuel. This system would have a water consumption of
approximately 50 gpm, supplied from the Raw Water
System if the sodium and potassium salts in the water
are at a low level. Otherwise, the water must come
from the demineralized water system which would then
be sized for this additional service. A magnesium
base inhibitor would be added to the fuel to protect
the gas turbines from attack by vanadium pentoxide,
V2°5
The treated fuel, at a temperature of approximately
100°F flows to the treated fuel storage tank which
has a storage of 2,500,000 gallons and operates in the
temperature range of 85°F to 1250F. During periods of
disuse, the temperature of the tank would be maintained
above 85°F by recirculation through one of the two
fuel heaters.
Each heater has a capacity of 6.75 million Btu/hr which
is capable of heating an oil flow of approximately
250 gpm, the normal fuel usage of one unit, from 850F
to 210°F. Normal operation of the heater is with the
inlet temperature in the range of 160°F to 210°F with
an outlet temperature of 210°F. The heating steam is
provided by one 700 hp auxiliary steam boiler.
2.5 Plant Water Systems
The plant water systems would be required as described

below. Quantities given are for a single unit plant.
The double unit plant requirement would be double.
2.5.1 Well Water Supply System

This system would provide plant water from wells ad
jacent to the plant area. The total water require
ment is approximately 1600 gallons per minute for a
single unit.
The system consists of a series of wells and inter
connecting pipe with the number of wells and their
depth determined by actual groundwater conditions.
For purposes of this study, it is assumed that eight
wells 100 ft. deep each with a capacity of 200 gpm
would be provided. For backup, the water supply
system would be connected to the municipal supply of
the nearest town.
2-5
2.5.2 Raw Water and Fire Protection System
The raw water is supplied directly to the raw water

storage tank, for makeup to the cooling tower, for
sanitary facilities in the Control Room and as the make
up water for the demineralizer plant.
The fire protection system consists of a jockey pump,
main pump, and emergency pump supplied from the raw water
tank, that provide the water for the fire protection
system within the Power Block, for 23 hydrants in the
plant area and automatic sprinkler systems for the main
transformer.
The raw water storage tank, a vertical steel tank with

a capacity of 145,000 gallons is located near the Power
Block.
2.5.3 Demineralizer Water System
Raw water would be supplied from the well water system

to two 100% capacity booster pumps that feed the demin
eralizer plant. The demineralized water from this
plant is supplied to a demineralizer water storage tank
and from there by gravity to a condensate makeup tank.
This latter tank serves the condenser hot wells directly
and supplies the closed cooling water head tank by
condensate makeup pumps.
The demineralizer plant consists of three trains of 50%

capacity each 50 gpm and arranged for both parallel and
separate operation. The plant includes the following
equipment for each unitized train: activated carbon
filters to remove organic material and chlorine before
the raw water enters the demineralizing plant: strong
acid cation exchangers; base anion exchangers; and mixed
bed demineralizer. Additional equipment includes one
concentrated acid storage tank, and one caustic storage
tank, pumps, piping and instrumentation and controls.
2.5.4 Service and Closed Cooling Water Systems

The service water system on the open side of the closed
cooling water system heat exchanger provides cooling
water for motor bearings, hydrogen coolers, lube oil
and other services in the Power Block.
Demineralized water for makeup for the closed cooling

water system is supplied from the closed cooling water
head tank which is maintained full by the condensate
makeup water pumps.
2-6
The heat exchanger for this closed system is located
adjacent to the Power Block area. The unit is a
horizontal shell and straight tube type with two
divided water boxes of 50% capacity. It receives
in the shell side the hot water used to cool all
the internals of the power block and on the tube
side, it receives the service water from the cooling
tower sump. This exchanger is in continuous opera
tion when the plant is operating.
2.5.5 Circulating Water System
The circulating water system is to condense the

steam turbine exhaust steam. Before entering the
pump suction, the water is screened and treated
with chlorine and sulfuric acid. It is then
pumped through two 48 inch lines to the condenser
and discharged through one 72 inch line to the
cooling tower and then returns to the cooling
tower basin. Makeup for this sytem is from the
well water supply and wash water. The cooling tower
for th is location would be an induced draft, double
cross flow with three cells each 51 ft. wide and
4 0 ft. long.
2.6 Electrical Systems
Electrical system and equipment are unitized system design.

Each generator is connected to a main power transformer
through isolated phase bus and disconnect links. A tap
with disconnect links from the isolated phase bus is
provided for connection to the unit auxiliary transformer.
Synchronizing, metering, relaying and control of the
generator, and line OCB's, load control of the generating
unit and control of the 4160 and selected 480 volt sta
tion electrical systems are provided in the Control Room.
The unit auxiliary transformer provides secondary aux
iliary system power at 4160 volts.
4160 volt switchgear bus sections supply power for the
station auxiliary system, including 4160 volt motors
and the 480 volt load center transformers. The 480
volt system includes motor control centers located in
equipment areas. In addition, an emergency D.C. bat
tery power system provides 250/ 125 volt power to the
vital services systems.
2-7
2.7 Switchyard
The switchyard serves the generating units, startup
transformers, transmission lines and an emergency
supply line of lower voltage (115 KV). The switch
yard would be equipped with circuit breakers, battery
operated disconnect switches, line traps, potential
devices and lightning arresters. Also included are
foundations, control building, supporting structures
and take-off towers.
2-8
3.0 PLANT NO. 2 SOUTHWEST LOCATION CURRENT EPA STANDARDS
Plant location is near Freeport, Texas,--See Figure 1A

in the Appendix—, and the combined cycle plants at this
location would be considered typical for this area. The
plant fuels are assumed to be delivered by rail to the
site.
3.1 General Site Description
The plant site is at sea level elevation in Seismic Zone 0

near the Gulf of Mexico. Ground water is assumed to be
a few feet below the surface. Sources of raw water for
plant makeup are assumed to be supplied from wells around
the plant site and supported by a connection to the
Freeport, Texas, Municipal Water Supply.
A one mile long road and a two mile railroad are assumed
to be required for access to the plant.
Soil condition at the site are assumed to be similar to
those for Plant No. 1, and require the use of timber
piles to support the major equipment.
Plant arrangement and plant equipment, including unfired

HRSG's, would be identical to that described for Plant
No. 1 except for the cooling towers.
Four cell towers would required rather than three cells

with each cell 40 ft. long and 51 ft. wide.
Plant MW rating for a single unit as adjusted for the

altitude and July mean high air temperature is 282 MW
gross, 273 MW net when burning No. 2 diesel oil. When
the plant is fired with No. 6 residual, the megawatt
ratings are 269 MW gross, 259 MW net. Megawatt ratings
are doubled for the two-unit plant.
3.3 Environmental Regulations
The same Federal EPA-NSPS Standards for emissions and

ambient conditions will apply at this site as at the site
of Plant No. 1. See Appendix 3 for the emissions standards
and regulations regarding the disposal of liquid wastes
and heat to the waters of the U.S.
Emissions of SO2 and particulates would be met by restric
tions on the fuels to be burned. requirements would
be met by water injection.
3-1
4.0 PLANT NO. 3 - WESTERN LOCATION - CURRENT EPA STANDARDS
Combined cycle plants at this location would be considered

typical for plants in the Western region of the United
States. The plant fuels would be delivered by rail to
the site. Plant location is near Hermiston, Oregon; see
Figure 1 in the Appendix. For purposes of this study,
this is considered to be a remote location. See Section
8.7.
As described below, the emissions standards of Oregon for

sulfur dioxide effectively prevent the use of heavy resi
duals and crudes and some No. 2 distillates except those
with the lowest sulfur content. Limit of sulfur content
to meet the emissions standards is 0.50% by weight.
Plant site is 627 ft. above sea level in Seismic Zone 2
near the Umatilla River. The plant raw water supply is
assumed to be provided from wells near the river. This
supply has as a backup, a connection to the Hermiston,
OR Municipal Water Supply.
A five mile long road and railroad are assumed to be required
for access to the plant.
Foundation conditions are such that the plant can be sup

ported without piles, on spread footings at the surface.
Plant arrangement and plant equipment including unfired

HRSG's would be identical to that described for Plant No. I
except the cooling towers would have 3 cells 36 ft. long
and 51 ft. wide rather than 3 cells 40 ft. long and 51 ft.
wid e .
Plant MW rating for a single unit as adjusted for the alti

265 MW net, when burning No. 2 diesel oil, and 261 MW
gross, 251 MW net, when fired with No. 6 residual oil.
Megawatt ratings are doubled for a two-unit plant.
Federal EPA-NSPS Standards for particulates and nitrogen

oxides apply at this location. For sulfur dioxide, the
state regulations would apply. These standards would be
met by restrictions on the fuels. The maximum S permitted
4-1
4.3 Environmental Regulations (Cont'd)
in the fuels by Oregon regulations is 0.50% by weight

and effectively eliminates heavy residuals, most blended
residuals and crudes and some distillates from use at
this site.
Other environmental regulations limiting liquid wastes
and heat would govern the design of the plants.
4-2
5.0 PLANT NO. 4 - WESTERN LOCATION METROPOLITAN ZONE (L.A.)
STANDARDS
typical for plants in the Southern California, South Coast
Air Basin region of the United States. The plant fuels
would be delivered by rail to the site. As described be
low, the emissions standards of this air basin will permit
only distillates to be used as fuels in this area.
For purposes of this study, the plant location is in

Los Angeles, CA. See Figure 1A in the Appendix.

Plant site is established at 275 ft. above sea level in
Seismic Zone 4. Primary source of raw water for the plant
would be wells, supported by a connection to the Los Anceles
Municipal Water System.
The access road and access railroad required for the plant
are each assumed to be one-half mile long.
Good bearing soil or rock is assumed to be present at

this site, and the plants would be supported on spread
footings without piles.

HRSG's, would be the same as Plant No. 1 except for the
cooling towers. The tower for each unit would have three
cells, each 36 ft. long and 51 ft. wide.
Plant MW rating for a single unit, as adjusted for the

altitude and July mean high air temperature, is 284 MW
gross, 275 MW net, when burning No. 2 diesel oil. Megawatt
ratings are doubled for a two-unit plant.
Plant structural features and equipment would be designed
for the Seismic 4 zone requirements.

The plants would be designed to meet all federal environmental
regulations for liquid wastes and heat to the waters of
the U.S. In addition, it must meet the California ambient
air quality standards, and the new source rules and regu
lations of the South Coast Air Basin, Southern California
Metropolitan Zone (LA) Rule 67 which are more restrictive
than the Federal EPA-NSPS Standards.
5-1
South Coast Air Basin Air Quality Standards for sulfur
dioxides stated in Appendix, Figure 3A limits the SO2
emissions to 200 Ibs/hr per source. This is approximately
one-third of the allowable federal EPA rate. To meet this
standard without construction of a flue gas desulfuri
zation facility, which is excluded from the scope of this
study, a maximum sulfur content of the fuel can be only
0.25% by weight. (This is assuming three sources, i.e.
three gas turbines.) Most blended residuals and crudes
and heavy residuals have much higher sulfur content. See
Table 1-2, Typical Properties, Liquid Fuels. Therefore,
most of these fuels cannot be considered for use at this
site. In fact, as shown on Table 1-2, not all distillates
have such a low sulfur content. Only low sulfur blended
residuals and crudes and No. 2 distillates can meet this
0.25% limitation.
Particulate emissions limits of 10 Ib/hr per source are

approximately one-seventh of the allowable EPA rate, again
assuming three turbines. To meet this South Coast Air
Basin, Rule 67, Standard without precipitators, a maxi
mum ash content from all sources is limited to 260 ppm.
Again from Table 1-2, the heavy residuals are eliminated
for use at this site.
The vanadium content of the blended residuals and crudes
affects the ash emissions. Any amount of vanadium over
0.5 ppm must be inhibited by three times the amount of
magnesium, and all of it becomes ash. If, for example,
the vanadium content were 65 ppm and 195 ppm of magnesium
inhibitor was added, this 260 ppm alone would become the
maximum ash allowed.
Nitrogen and hydrogen contents of the fuel must also

satisfy the South Coast Air Basin requirements for NO^ and
visibility given in Figure 3c of the appendix. Allowances
must also be made for the qualities of the water used for
NOx abatement. Properties of this water may add to the
SO2 and particulate emissions.
5-2
6.0 PLANT NO. 5 ^ NORTHEAST LOCATION - CURRENT EPA
STANDARDS
typical for plants in the Northeast region of the United
States. The plant fuels, either distillates or blended
residuals, would be delivered by rail to the site. For
purposes of this study, the plant location is near
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. See Figure 1 in the Appendix.

near the Delaware River. The plant raw water supply is
assumed to be provided from wells near the river. This
source is supported by a connection to the Bethlehem, PA
municipal water supply system.
A two mile long road and four mile railroad spur are
assumed to be required for access to the plant. Foundation
conditions are assumed to be good bearing soil or rock
which can support the plant on spread footing foundations
without piles.

HRSG's, would be identical to that described for plant
No. 1 in Section 2, except the cooling tower for the
single unit would be 51 ft. wide with four cells, each 32
f t. long.
Plant MW rating for a single unit as adjusted for the

altitude and July mean high air temperature is 281 MW
gross, 272 MW net when burning No. 2 diesel oil and 268 MW
gross, 258 MW net when burning No. 6 residual oil. Mega
watt ratings are doubled for a two-unit plant.

Federal EPA-NSPS Standards for sulfur dioxide, particulates,
and nitrogen oxides, as given in Appendix, Figures 3a, b
and c apply at this location. These standards would be
met by restrictions on the fuels as given in Section 2, by
water injection, as required, for control of nitrogen oxides
and by treatment of the residual fuels.
Other environmental regulations limiting liquid waste dis
charges and heat to the waters of the U.S.--see Figures 3d
and 3e of the Appendix--would govern the design of the
plants.
6-1
7.0 PLANT NO. 6 - SOUTHEAST LOCATION - CURRENT EPA STANDARDS
typical for such plants in the Southeast region of the
United States. The plant fuels, either distillates or
blended residuals and crudes and heavy residuals, would
be delivered by rail to the site. For purposes of this
study, the plant location is near Albany, Georgia. See
Appendix, Figure 1.

near the Flint River. Source of raw water supply are
wells near the river which are supported by a connection
to the Albany, GA Municipal Water Supply System.
A five mile long road and five mile railroad spur are
assumed to be required for access to the plant.
Good bearing soil or rock is expected to be present at
the site, and spread footings are assumed to be the type
of foundation used to support the plant.

HRSG's, would be identical to that described for Plant 1
in Section 2, except the cooling towers. The towers for
each unit would be 51 ft. wide with four cells each 36 ft.
long.
Plant MW rating for a single unit as adjusted for the alti

270 MW net, when burning No. 2 diesel oil, and 266 MW gross
256 MW net, when burning No. 6 residual oil. Megawatt rat
ings are doubled for a two-unit plant.
Plants would be designed to meet, and fuels would be speci

fied so that flue gas emissions would meet all environmental
regulations for particulates, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
oxides and opacity.
7-1
8.0 CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
Capital cost estimates have been prepared for the six

power plants in this study. Estimates reflect not only
the different scope developed for each plant to suit
the requirements established for it, but also the labor
costs at each of the different locations.
Project schedules for engineering, licensing and construc

tion of the plants are assumed, for purposes of this study
to have the same durations, though schedules for actual
plants might well be different.
Basis and qualifications for the capital cost estimates

for the power plants in this study are summarized below.
8.1 Estimate Basis
Estimates are based on cost information available from

Bechtel's current projects and knowledge of present day
power plant costs. Estimates are prepared in a uniform
manner in order to provide consistent economic comparisons.
8.2 General Scope Definition

General scope definition for each estimate is for a
complete plant, including switchyard, on the assumed sites.
General scope is that of a typical plant without special
site requirements, other than the scope and design fea
tures described in other sections of this report. Cost
sensitive baseline plant data are summarized in Tables of
Section 1.
Each plant is engineered and constructed to comply with

all current federal, state and local requirements, known
and defined, as of July 1, 1976. Requirements of OSHA
Regulation 29 CFR 1910.95 (noise exposure of 90 dBA for
8-hour duration during plant operation) are yet to be
fully defined. Therefore, engineering and design require
ments and costs for complying are not included.
8.3 Other Owners' Costs
In addition to the estimated costs of the plants given in

Table 8-1, certain other costs, often called Owners'
costs, will be incurred as part of the overall project
cost. An allowance of five (5) percent has been added
to the estimates for these costs not otherwise included.
This five (5) percent covers such costs as described in
the following paragraphs.
8-1
8.3.1 Land and Land Rights; Licenses and Permits
Land and land rights and costs of Right of Ways; water

rights and water allocations; recreational areas and
landscaping required by agencies; permanent telephone,
teletype, and microwave communications to the plant
site, meteorology stations and other such costs. In
addition, there are consulting services for site selec
tion studies, costs associated with obtaining all
necessary licenses and permits including preparation
of environmental impact statements, dealings with pub
lic agencies, long range community relations, etc.
8.3.2 Owners' Engineering and Home Office Services
This category covers the owners' managerial, engineer

ing, financing and accounting, procurement, labor re
lations, general services, estimating, planning and
scheduling, coordination, construction management and
other home office services directly associated with
the p roj ec t.
8.3.3 Plant Equipment, Supplies and Startup Costs
Spare parts and supplies of all kinds, automobiles and

trucks for the plant operators, furniture, radios,
laboratory equipment, etc. are also in this grouping.
Initial purchases of chemicals, gases and other ma
terials are also included along with other startup
costs for owner supervisory personnel, craft labor,
temporary and consumable materials, and training of
operators.
8.3.4 Taxes and Insurance
Property taxes and insurance costs on the land and on

the plant during construction are part of other owners
costs. Other taxes such as sale/use taxes, social
security taxes, federal, state and local income taxes,
workmen's compensation and workman's liability taxes,
etc. are not in other owners' costs, but are included
elsewhere in the estimates.
8.4 Other Owners' Costs Excluded
Other owners' costs which are excluded or not otherwise
included in the estimates are:
8.4.1 Oil in Storage
All costs associated with initial purchase and initial
storage of oil in both the live storage and long term
reserve storage of 60 days supply, are other owners'
costs, not included.
8-2
8.4.2 Transmission and Distribution
Facilities beyond the switchyard for delivery of elec

tricity from the new plant to consumers are excluded.
8.5 Allowance for Funds During Construction
Allowance for Funds during Construction, AFDC, is de

fined as "the net cost of borrowed funds used for
construction purposes and a reasonable rate on other
funds when so used." AFDC rates are the weighted aver
age cost of money used for construction generated from
internal sources as well as externally generated cash.
An allowance of eight (8) percent has been added to the
estimates for this account. This eight percent represents
approximately one year at about 7-3/4% compounded. This
one year is the time from the center of gravity of expen
ditures to commercial operation of the units. The 7-3/4%
is the weighted average cost of money used for project
finaneing.
8.6 Schedule and Resources
All estimates are based on a project schedule for

two unit construction of 30 months from start of engi
neering to commercial operation for the first unit and
34 months to the second unit commercial operation.
Construction is scheduled on a 40-hour work week with
casual overtime included and without scheduled overtime.
As such, the estimates and schedules assumed availability

of materials and permanent plant equipment on present day
lead times, and availability of manual and nonmanual
personnel in numbers and skills as required for the engi
neering and construction.
8.7 Labor and Labor Related Costs
All estimates reflect the costs of labor and labor related

factors and wage rates expected at the four different
plant locations.
Incentives to attract and hold labor with the skills
and in the numbers needed are assumed not to be required
in the Great Lakes, Southwest, Western (LA), Northeast
and Southeast regions. Plants No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
However, the Western site, near Hermiston, Oregon (Plant
No. 3) is considered a site remote from population centers,
and incentives are assumed required to attract and hold
the craftsmen. These incentives, including travel allow
ances, a construction camp for single workers, trailer
courts and other living accommodations, recreational
8-3
facilities, food subsidies, free transporation, and
the like, are assumed to add 15% to the cost of labor
at this site.
8.8 Escalation
Estimates in Table 8.1 through 8.3 are at the July 1, 1976

price level for all costs including materials and equip
ment, freight and manual labor, non-manual labor and
engineering and other home office services.
Estimates have been escalated at the rate of seven (7)
percent per year compounded to the center of gravities
of expenditures in order to provide estimates for plant
completions and commercial operations in 1985, 1990 and
1995 .
The table below illustrates the assumed basis for this
escalation.
Plant Completion 1985 1990 1995
Unit 1 Commercial Operation 3- 1-85 3- 1-90 3- 1-95

Unit 2 Commercial Operation 7-1-85 7-1-90 7-1-95
C.G. of Expenditures 4- 1-84 4- 1-89 4- 1-94
Years from 7-1-76 7.75 12.75 17.75
Compounding factor assuming

7% escalation rate 1. 689 2.369 3.323
8.9 Distribution of Costs Between Units
The distribution shown below is based on two assumptions.
First assumption is that, regardless of their ultimate
use and benefit to both units, certain necessary facili
ties and services are provided for the first unit so
that it can be built and operated without consideration
of the second unit.
Examples include site grading and drainage, fencing,
roads, railroads, temporary construction facilities,
adminstration buildings and warehouses. Other examples
of these include station crane, startup steam generators,
auxiliary and startup transformers and air compressors.
The second assumption is that the second unit, though
engineered and constructed with the first unit, is com
pleted four months later, and its center of gravity
8-4
of expenditures is four months later than for the first
unit. Therefore, the costs of the second unit are subject
to an additional four months of escalation.
Distillate Residual
2x250 MW 2x250 MW
Units 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
For 7-1-76 Price Level

Estimates on Tables 8-1, 8-2,
8-3, & 8-4 % 52.4 47.6 52.3 47.7
For Escalated Price Level

Estimates on Table 8-4 % 51.8 48.2 51.7 48.3
TABLE 8-1
ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE SUMMARIES

FOR SINGLE UNIT PLANTS
PLANT NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6
SITE NEAR KENOSHA FREEPORT HERMISTON LOS ANGELES BETHLEHEM ALBANY
STATE WI TX OR CA PA GA
FUEL OIL TYPE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE
EMISSIONS STANDARDS EPA EPA EPA/OR CA (LA) 67 EPA EPA
PLANT MWe NET - 1 UNIT 1 x 272 1 x 273 1 x 265 ) X 275 1 x 272 1 x 270
ITEM S MILLIONS
10 Concrete $1.99 $1.71 $2.43 $2.01 $2.40 $1.80
20 Civil/Structural/Architectural
21,22 Structural & Misc. Iron & Steel 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10
25 Architectural & Finish 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.25 0.28 0.23
26 Earthwork 1.29 1.12 2.61 0.90 2.15 2.02
27 Piles & Caissons 0.13 0.12 - - -
28 Site Improvements 1.65 1.52 3.02 1.23 2.57 2.63
30 Heat Recovery Steam Generators 11.45 10.56 12.66 11.2.7 12.73 10.85
41 Steam Turbine Generator 5.87 5.80 5.96 5.85 5.97 5.82

42 Main Condenser & Auxiliaries 0.87 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.90 0.86
43 Rotating Equipment, Ex. T/G 1.13 1.11 1.16 1.13 1.16 1.12
44 Heaters & Exchangers, Incl. 1.01 1.10 1.03 0.97 1.16 1.08
Cooling Tower
45 Tanks, Drums & Vessels 1.27 1. 18 1.40 1.25 1.41 1.20
46 Water Treatment/Chemical Feed 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.40
47 Gas Turbine Generators 21.50 21.26 21.82 21.45 21.84 21.34
48 Other Mech. Equip, Incl. Insulation 0.75 0.69 0.83 0.74 0.84 0.71
6. Lagging
49 Heating, Ventilation & Air 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10
Conditioning
50 Piping 2.64 2.39 2.98 2.59 3.00 2.47
60 Control & Instrumentation 1.25 1.17 1.36 1.23 1.36 1.20
70 Electrical Equipment (Switchgear/ 3.46 3.37 3.58 3.44 3.59 3.39

Transformers/MCC's/Fixtures)
80 Electrical Bulk Materials

82,83 0.31 0.25 0.39 0.30 0.40 0.26
0.35 0.30 0.43 0.34 0.44 0.32
84,85 86 Wire & Cable
Switchyard 2.02 1.95 2.11 2.01 2.12 1.97
$59.80 $57.26 $65.59 $58.45 $64.96 $59.87

Subtotal
90 Field Distributables 2.92 2.18 3.91 2.78 3.97 2.42
$62.72 $59.44 $69.50 $61.23 $68.93 $62.29

Subtotal
Engineering & Home Office Services, 4.77 4.67 4.97 4.72 4.95 4.75
Including Fees
10.11 9.59 11.13 9.85 11.12 10.06

Contingency
$77.60 $73.70 $85.60 $75.80 $85.00 $77.10

Total Estimated Plant Cost
Other Owners Costs 3.88 3.69 4.28 3.79 4.25 3.86

(5%)
Allowance For Funds During Con- 6.52 6.21 7.22 6.41 7.15 6.44
struction (8%)
(3.90)(1)
Total Estimated Project Cost S88.00 $83.60 $97.10 $93.20 $86.00 $96.40 $87.40
at July 1, 1976 Price Level for
Plant Comoletion - August 1, 1977
Distillate Fuel Use
Additional Cost For Residual 6.50 5.80 7.50 6.90 6.40 2) 7.50 6.00
Fuel Use
Total Estimated Project Cost $94.50 $89.40 $104.60 $100.10 $92.40 $103.90 $93.40
At July 1, 1976 Price Level
Residual Fuel Use
$/kW - Distillate Fuel Use $324/kW $306/kW $366/kW $352/kW $313/kW $354/kW $324/kW
PLANT MWe NET - 1 UNIT 1 x 258 1 x 259 1 x 251 lx 261 1 x 258 1 x 256
RESIDUAL FUEL USE
$/kW - Residual Fuel Use $366/kW $345/kW $417/kW $399/kW $354/kW $403/kW $365/kW
(1) Adjustment for a Western Site 2) This plant is not permitted under the present
Not In A Remote Location regulations. See Pgs 1-3 and 5-2.
8-6
TABLE 8-2
ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE SUMMARIES

FOR TWO UNIT PLANTS
PLANT 1 2 3 4 5 6
SITE NEAR KENOSHA FREEPORT HERMISTON LOS ANGELES BETHLEHEM ALBANY
STATE WI TX OR CA PA GA
FUEL OIL TYPE DISTILLATE DIS TILLATE DIS TILLATE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE DISTILLATE
EMISSIONS STANDARDS EPA EPA EPA/OR CA(LA) 67 EPA EPA
PLANT MWe NET - 2 EQUAL SIZE UNITS 2x272 2x273 2x265 2x275 2x272 2x270
ITEM $ MILLIONS
10 Concrete $3.75 $3.21 $4.56 $3.79 $4.52 $3.38
20 Civil/Structural/Architectural
21,22 Structural & Misc. Iron & Steel 0.19 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.18
25 Architectural & Finish 0.46 0.42 0.51 0.45 0.51 0.43
26 Earthwork 1.95 1.70 3.37 1.54 2.85 2.63
27 Piles & Caissons 0.25 - 0.23 - - _ -
28 Site Improvements 2.31 2.12 3.77 1.87 3.31 3.25
30 Heat Recovery Steam Generators 22.90 21.12 25.32 22.54 25.46 21.69
41 Steam Turbine Generator 11.74 11.60 11.92 11.71 11.93 11.65

42 Main Condenser & Auxiliaries 1.74 1.69 1.80 1.73 1.80 1.71
43 Rotating Equipment, Ex. T/G 2.18 2.14 2.24 2.17 2.24 2.15
44 Heaters & Exchangers, 2.02 2.20 2.02 1.92 2.32 2.17
Incl. Cooling Tower
45 Tanks, Drums & Vessels 2.54 2.35 2.80 2.51 2.82 2.41
46 Water Treatment/Chemical Feed 0.80 0.79 0.82 0.80 0.82 0.79
47 Gas Turbine Generators 43.00 42.53 43.65 42.90 43.68 42.68
48 Other Mech. Equip, Incl. 1.40 1.28 1.56 1.38 1.57 1.32
Insulation & Lagging
49 Heating, Ventilation & Air 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.17
Conditioning
50 Piping 4.88 4.42 5.51 4.79 5.55 4.57
60 Control & Instrumentation 2.31 2.17 2.50 2.28 2.52 2.21
70 Electrical Equipment (Switchgear/ 6.57 6.39 6.80 6.54 6.82 6.44

Transformers/MCC's/Fixtures)
80 Electrical Bulk Materials

82,83 Conduit 0.58 0.47 0.74 0.56 0.76 0.50
84,85,86 Wire & Cable 0.67 0.57 0.81 0.65 0.83 0.60
- Switchyard 3.85 3.72 4.04 3.84 4.04 3.76
Subtotal $116.27 $111.46 $125.16 $114.36 $124.76 $114.69
90 Field Distributables 5.50 4.12 7.38 5.23 7.50 4.56
Subtotal $121.77 $115.58 $132.54 $119.59 $132.26 $119.25
Engineering & Home Office Services, 7.01 6.87 7.26 6.96 7.25 6.95
Including Fees
Contingency 19. 32 18. 35 21.00 18. 95 20. 89 18. 90
Total Estimated Plant Cost $148.10 $140.80 $160.80 $145.50 $160.40 $145.10
Other Owners Costs (5%) 7.41 7.04 8.04 7.28 8.02 7.26
Allowance for Funds During Cons- 12.49 11.86 13.46 12.22 13.48 12.14
truction (8%)
( 7.10:I1)
Total Estimated Project Coot at $168.00 $159.70 $182.30 $175.20 $165.00 $181.90 $164.50
July 1, 1976 Price Level for
Plant Completion - October 1, 1977
Distillate Fuel Use
Additional Cost for Residual 12.70 11.30 14.70 13.50 12.40 1

2) 14.80 11.80
Fuel Use
Total Estimated Project Cost $180.70 $171.00 $197.00 $188.70 $177.40 $196.70 $176.30
At July 1, 1976 Price Level
Residual Fuel Use
$/kW - Distillate Fuel Use $309/kW $292/kW $344/kW $331/kW $300/kW $334/kW $305/kW
PLANT MWe NET - 2 EQUAL SIZE 2 x 258 2 x 259 2 x 251 2 x 261 2 x 258 2 x 256
UNITS - RESIDUAL FUEL USE
$/kW - Residual Fuel Use $350/kW $330/kW $392/kW $376/kW $340/kW $381/kW $344/kW
1) Adjustment for a Western site not in a remote location

2) This plant is not permitted under the present regulations. See Pgs 1-3 and 5-2.
8-7
TABLE 8-3
ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE SUMMARIES
ESCALATED TO 1985, 1990 & 1995
PLANT COMPLETION IN 1977 1985 1990 1995

UNIT 1 COMMERCIAL OPERATION NA 3- 1-85 3- 1-903- 1-95
UNIT 2 COMMERCIAL OPERATION NA 7-1-85 7-1-90 7-1-95
CG OF EXPENDITURES 7-1-76 4- 1-84 4- 1-894- 1-94
Escalation Multiplier +68.9% +136.9% +232.3%

@ 7%/year compounded
1 x 250 MW Unit
IN $/KW
(Distillate Fuel)
Plant No . 1 $324 $547 $768 $1 ,077

Plant No . 2 306 517 725 1 ,017
Plant No . 3 Remote Site 366 618 867 1 ,216
Plant No . 3 Not a Remote Site 352 595 834 1 ,170
Plant No . 4 313 529 741 1 ,040
Plant No . 5 354 598 839 1 , 176
Plant No . 6 324 547 768 1 , 077
(Residual Fuel)
Plant No . 1 366 618 867 1 ,216

Plant No . 2 345 583 817 1 ,146
Plant No . 3 Remo t e Site 417 704 988 1 ,386
Plant No . 3 No t a Remote Site 399 674 945 1 ,326
Plant No . 4 354 1) 598 839 1 ,176
Plant No . 5 403 681 955 1 ,339
Plant No . 6 365 616 865 1 ,213
2 x 250 MW Unit
IN $/KW
(Distillate Fuel)
Plant No . 1 $309 $522 $732 $1 ,027

Plant No . 2 292 493 692 970
Plant No . 3 Remote Site 344 581 815 1 ,143
Plant No . 3 Not a Remote Site 331 559 784 1 ,100
Plant No . 4 300 507 711 997
Plant No . 5 334 564 791 1 ,110
Plant No . 6 305 515 723 1 ,014
(Residual Fuel)
Plant No . 1 350 591 829 1 , 163
Plant No . 2 330 557 782 1 ,097
Plan t No . 3 Remote Site 392 662 929 1 , 303
Plant No . 3 Not a Remo t e Site 376 635 891 1 ,249
Plant No . 4 340 1) 574 805 1 ,130
Plan t No . 5 381 644 903 1 ,266
Plant No . 6 344 581 815 1 ,143
1) This plant is not permitted under the present regulations.

See Pgs. 1-3 and 5-2.
8-8
9. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Plant performance of combined-cycle power plants is pre

dominantly governed by the higher temperature, gas turbine
components rather than by the well established, moderate
temperature, steam components. Therefore, this section
concentrates on the gas turbine portion of the combined-
cycle plant. A short discussion of fuels and advanced
energy alternatives methods is also included.
9.1 Trends in Gas Turbine Performance
Performance of the simple open-cycle gas turbine measured

in net efficiency at bus bar and specific power in kWe
per pound of air have been calculated for various turbine
inlet temperatures and compressor pressure ratios. Results
from these computer computations are plotted in Figures
9A and 9B. Standard ambient air conditions and represen
tative efficiencies, given on the figures, were assumed as
the basis for the calculations.
Figure 9A illustrates that for the same pressure ratio, the

efficiency increases with increasing inlet temperatures to
2,400°F. Beyond 2,400°F, however, efficiency improvement
is negligibly small. Figure 9A also illustrates that ef
ficiency increases with higher pressure ratios up to an
optimum ratio. The 1,500°F curve is the only temperature
curve showing this maximum efficiency point within the 5
to 26 pressure ratio range.
The specific power parameter shown on Figure 9B--the power

output per pound of air flowing through the cycle--is an
indicator of turbine size and hence, capital cost. The
higher the specific power value, the smaller the turbine
needed to provide a given power output level. Maximizing
the specific power minimizes the machine size. As the
curves on Figure 9B show, specific power continues to in
crease with increasing turbine inlet temperatures. Thus
increasing this temperature beyond 2,400°F can reduce
machine size even though efficiency improvements are negli
gible.
The present generation Industrial/utility turbines operate

at a 10 to 1 pressure ratio and a 2,000°F turbine inlet
temperature. Specific power is about 140 kWe per pound of
air, and a net bus bar efficiency of about 32.5 percent
(10,509 Btu/kwh) is achieved. This efficiency is computed
using the low heat value of oil.
9-1
.45 -| TURBINE INLET
CONDITIONS:
TEMPERATURE °F
COMPRESSOR EFFICIENCY = 0.85
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 0.98 f3000
- 8 < 2600
\2400
2000
.40 -
1750
- 9
cc
<
CD
=3
V)
D I—
m .35 - CD
I- -10 b
o
< o
> 1500
o
z
UJ UJ
o -11
H
<
CC
it .30 H
LU <
I— UJ
hi - 12 X
z
h- 13
.25 -
- 14
I I
10 15
COMPRESSOR PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 9A SIMPLE OPEN-CYCLE GAS TURBINE NET EFFICIENCY VARIATION WITH

COMPRESSOR PRESSURE RATIO FOR VARIOUS TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURES
9-2
CONDITIONS:
COMPRESSOR EFFICIENCY = 0.85
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY = 0.98
TURBINE EFFICIENCY = 0.90
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY = 0.975 TURBINE INLET
MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY = 0.975 TEMPERATURE °F
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE = 60° F
AMBIENT PRESSURE = 14.69 PSIA
^ 200 -
LINE OF MAXIMUM SPECIFIC POWER
COMPRESSOR PRESSURE RATIO
Figure 9B SIMPLE OPEN-CYCLE GAS TURBINE SPECIFIC POWER VARIATION WITH

COMPRESSOR PRESSURE RATIO FOR VARIOUS TURBINE INLET
TEMPERATURES
9-3
It is anticipated that the next generation of industrial/
utility turbines, using present aircraft engine technology
will operate at a 16 to 1 pressure ratio and a 2,400°F
turbine inlet temperature. Specific power will be about
202 kWe per pound of air, and a net bus bar efficiency of
about 38 percent (8,988 Btu/kwh) may be achieved.
9.2 Trends in Combined-Cycle Heat Rates

The trend of combined-cycle heat rates over the past ten
years is shown on Figure 9C. The first twelve power
plant examples on the figure were put in service in the
late sixties and early seventies. The remaining examples
are currently offered as engineered designs. The year
plotted indicates when the design was first available or
was first placed into service.
Turbine inlet temperatures are indicated along the trend

curve. These temperatures correspond to turbine engine
industrial/utility development as follows:
Industrial/utility engine practice in the 1950's 1500°F

Industrial/utility engine practice in the 1960's 1750°F
Present industrial/utility engine practice with
air-cooled blading (including turbines in this
study) 2000°F
Present aircraft engine practice and next gener
ation industrial engine practice using air-cooled
blading 2400°F
Likely upper limit for air-cooled blading tech
nology 2600°F
Projected for water-cooled or ceramic-bladed
machines of the future. 3000°F
9.3 Consideration of Fuels
Gas turbines require clean fuels and, at present, operate
on natural gas, petroleum distillates and treated residual
oils. Future fuels could include coal derived gases and/
or oils.
Coal derived gases are expected to be relatively clean
fuels, comparable to natural gas fuels, and suitable for
easy injection and burning. The gasification processes
can produce either low Btu gas at about 150 Btu/ft heating
value using air and steam, or medium Btu gas at about 300
Btu/ft^ using oxygen and steam.
9-4
14
FOR IDENTIFICATION OF POINTS SEE Table 9-1
I
5y -30
tDCQ—
u) >o
z
UJ
i-<
cc cc
1500° F - APPROXIMATE TURBINE INLET TEMPERATURES
I-< 10" <
m
LU 03
I
D
-35
mD
O< _i
<
LU
cc
UJ
03<
03
9 o>
< -40
CC
UJ
o>
8- 15 \19 14 1970° F
-45
-50
3000° F
-55
'80 '90
YEAR INSTALLED OR AVAILABLE
Figure 9C TREND OF COMBINED-CYCLE HEAT RATES
9-5
TABLE 9-1
IDENTIFICATION OF POINTS PLOTTED ON FIGURE 9C

TREND OF COMBINED-CYCLE HEAT RATES
POINT IDENTIFICATION
1. Riverbend Steam Station; Duke Power Co., Burlington, N.J.
2. Parr Steam Station; South Carolina Electric and Gas Co.; Parr,
South Carolina
3. Riverview Gas Unit; Southwestern Public Service Co.; Borger, Texas
4. Buck Steam Station; Duke Power; Spencer, N.C.
5. Sterlington S.E. Station Unit #7; Louisiana Power & Light Co.;
Sterlington, Louisiana
6. Santan Station #1-4; Salt River Project; Gilbert, Arizona

7. Kellerman Power Station; Lunen, West Germany
8. Comanche Station, Public Service Co., of Oklahoma; Lawton, Oklahoma
9. Brunot Island; Duquesne Light Co.; Brunot Island, Pennsylvania

10. Southern California Edison #2-11; High Desert, California
11. Southern California Edison #12-16; High Desert, California

12. Gilbert Station #9-12; Jersey Central Power and Light; Gilbert
Station, New Jersey
13. Units #3 and 4; Ohio Edison Co.; Lorain, Ohio
14. Curtiss Wright Corp. Model TEC 150

15. General Electric Co. Model STAG 400
16. Curtiss Wright Corp. Models TEC 300, TEC 400, TEC 550, and TEC 600
17. Westinghouse Electric Corp. Model PACE 320
18. Western Farmers Co-op; and Arko, Okla. General Electric Co. Model
STAG 100
19. General Electric Co. Model STAG 600
20. Turbodyne Model CC-200, CC 400
21. Beaver Plant; Portland General Electric Co.; Portland, Oregon
9-6
These processes are fairly well developed and are expected
to be commercially available in the intermediate term
(after 1985).
Processes for converting coal to oil are being developed,
and are also expected to be commercially available in the
intermediate term.
9-7
Raproduced from the 1976 edition of the Uniform Building Code, copyright 1976,
with permission of the publisher. International Conference of Building Officials.
APPENDIX
>
I
Figure 1A PLANT LOCATIONS & SEISMIC ZONES

APPENDIX
FIGURE IB
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE CURVES
HEAT RATE
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE FACTOR
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE °F
AMBIENT TEMPERATURE EFFECT ON NET PLANT PERFORMANCE
HEAT RATE
RELATIVE PERFORMANCE FACTOR.
ALTITUDE FEET
ALTITUDE EFFECT ON NET PLANT PERFORMANCE
A- 2
APPENDIX
FIGURE 1C
RELATIVE
MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS
MAINTENANCE COST FACTOR

-
_ REFINERY
RESIDUAL
OIL
CRUDE
_
OIL DISTILLATE
OIL NATURAL GAS
FUEL TYPE
EFFECT OF FUEL ON GAS TURBINE MAINTENANCE COST
FAST START/LOAD
NORMAL START/LOAO
1/1000 1/100
STARTS/FIRED HOUR
EFFECT OF STARTING ON GAS TURBINE MAINTENANCE COST
BASE LOAD' PEAK LOAO

% OF BASE LOAD RATING
EFFECT OF MACHINE LOAD ON GAS TURBINE MAINTENANCE COST
A- 3
APPENDIX
TWO, THREE, FOUR OR EIGHT

GAS TURBINE GENERATORS WITH
Z- W/HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS
SWITCHYARD
STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR
r— FUEL TREATMENT AREA
RAW RESIDUAL
FUEL STORAGE TANK
60 DAY SUPPLY
PUMPSTATION
CONTROL ROOM
^ WATER
HEAT EXCHANGERS TREATMENT AREA
& CLOSED COOLING
WATER SYSTEM
TREATED RAW RESIDUAL -----FUEL UNLOADING

FUEL STORAGE TANK
COOLING TOWER
Cf 89 109129 180
FIGURE 2A-3 PLOT PLAN SINGLE UNIT RESIDUAL FUEL
SCALE
APPENDIX
TYPICAL FOR EACH UNIT
GAS TURBINE GENERATORS

W/HEAT RECOVERY STEAM GENERATORS
STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR

SWITCHYARD
] FUEL UNLOADING
FUEL
TREATMENT I RAW RESIDUAL FUEL STORAGE TANKS
- PUMP i 60 DAY SUPPLY

STATION
TYPICAL CONTROL / WATER
ROOM / TREATED
TREATMENT RAW DUAL
HEAT EXCHANGERS AREA
COOLING
TOWERS
xr ioo'izs laor
FIGURE 2A-4 PLOT PLAN DOUBLE UNIT RESIDUAL FUEL
SCALE
BYPASS
FUELOIL STACK
STACK
360° F
900PSIG
FUEL 82 MWe
850° F
STORAGE THREE HEAT
RECOVERY
STEAM CONDENSER (2.5 IN

V HG ,
GENERATORS
RESIDUAL FUEL
TREATMENT (HRSG)
DEAERATOR
I TREATED
1___ ?Uf^STORAGE. _J
I FEEDWATER (Q
1950°F
COMBUSTOR 3 x 74 “ 222 MWe
THREE GAS TURBINES
DIAGRAM OF POWER PLANT PROCESS
FIGURE 2B-1
GAS TURBINES
EMERGENCY FIRE
PROTECTION PUMP
UNLOADING
TANK
A—9
AUXILIARY BOILER
TANK CAR DUPLEX UNLOADING PUMPS STORAGE TANK DUPLEX PUMPS
FILTER (11 3-50% CAPACITY 60 DAY SUPPLY FILTER (1) 2-100% CAPACITY
HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEM

OPTIONAL GENERATORS IF FIRED
TANK CAR
UNLOADING
PUMP
FIGURE 2C—1 DISTILLATE FUEL OIL SYSTEM FOR 250 MW PLANT

DEMULSIFIER INHIBITOR
STORAGE TANK STORAGE TANK TREATED RESIDUAL
STORAGE TANK GAS TURBINES
10 DAY SUPPLY
UNLOADING
TANK WITH
STEAM COILS
AUXILIARY BOILER
FUEL HEATERS
TANK CAR DUPLEX UNLOADING PUMPS RAW RESIDUAL 1-300% CAPACITY TREATMENT FUEL 2-100% CAPACITY
FILTER 2-100% CAPACITY STORAGE TANK STEAM HEATED PLANT FORWARDING STEAM HEATED
60 DAY SUPPLY PUMPS
3-60% CAPACITY
MEAT RECOVERY STEAM
GENERATORS IF FIRED
TANK CAR
UNLOADING
PUMP
FIGURE 2C-2 RESIDUAL FUEL OIL SYSTEM FOR 250 MW PLANT

FIGURE 3 A
S02 EMISSION AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FEDERAL EPA
New Source Performance Standards (lb/10 Btu) 0.80(a)
Ambient Standards (ppm)^^
Primary
- Annual arithmetic mean 0.03
- Maximum 24-hour concentration 0.14
- Maximum 3-hour concentration
Secondary
- Annual arithmetic mean
(^Applicable for liquid fuels to new, stationary fossil-

fired installations only.
(^Federal Standards are promulgated in micrograms per
cubic meter of air. Values shown in ppm are approxi
mate equivalents.
State of California
South Coast Air Basin
Southern California Metropolitan Zone (LA) Rule 67
Emission Standards (Ib/hr) (per source) < 200
Ambient Standards (ppm)

- Annual arithmetic mean -
- Maximum 24-hour average concentration 0.04
- Maximum 3-hour concentration -
___________________________________________________
A-l 1
FIGURE 3B
PARTICULATE EMISSION AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FEDERAL EPA
New Source Performance Standards (lb/10^ Btu) 0.10

Ambient Standards (microgram/cubic meter)
- Annual geometric mean 75 (b)
- Maximum 24-hour concentration 150
Average opacity less than or equal to 20 percent

(Note: For a 500 MW plant, this is equivalent to
approximately 0.04 Ib/mm Btu.)
Maximum opacity of 40 percent permissible for
2 minutes in any hour.
^k^60 is a guide to be used in assessing implement

ation plans.
State of California
Emissions Standards (Ib/hr) per source - 10
Ambient Standards (microgram/cubic meter)

- Annual geometric mean 60
- Maximum 24-hour average 100
Visibility Reducing Particles

1 observation In sufficient amount to
reduce the prevailing
visibility to less than
10 miles when the rela
tive humidity is less
than 70%.
A-l 2
FIGURE 3C
NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FEDERAL EPA
New Source Performance Standards (lb/10^ Btu) 0.30(a)

Ambient Standards (ppm)^^
Primary
- Annual Average 0.05
- 1 hour —
Secondary
- Annual Average 0.05
- 1 hour
fa)
v applicable for liquid fuels to new stationary
fossil-fired installations only.
^k^Federal Standards are promulgated in micrograms
per cubic meter of air. Values shown in ppm are
approximate equivalents.
State of California
Emissions Standards (Ib/hr) per source i 140
Ambient Standards (ppm)

- Annual Average -
- 1 hour 0.25
A-13
FIGURE 3D
SUMMARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LIQUID WASTE DISCHARGES (A)
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS*
SOURCE EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTIC BPCTCA (1977) BATEA (1983) New Sources
Once Through Cooling Water Chlorine - Free Available 0.2 (0.5 max)** 0.2 (0.5 max)** 0.2 (0.5 max)**
Cooling Tower Blowdown Chemical Additives (Corrosion No Limitation Established on Case No Detectable Amount
Inhibitors) by Case Basis
Chlorine - Free Available 0.2 (0.5 max)** 0.2 (0.5 max)** 0.2 (0.5 max)**
Chromium No Limitation 0.2 (0.2 max) No Detectable Amount
Zinc No Limitation 1.0 (1.0 max) No Detectable Amount
Phosphorous No Limitation 5.0 (5.0 max) No Detectable Amount
pH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Bottom Ash Transport TSS 30 (100 max) 1977 limit in 1977 limit in
Oil & Grease 45 (20 max) pounds divided by pounds divided by
PH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Fly Ash Transport TSS 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max)

Oil & Grease 15 (20 max) 15 (20 max) No Discharge
pH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Low-Volume Wastes^ TSS 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max)

Oil & Grease 15 (20 max) 15 (20 max) 15 (20 max)
pH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Rainfall Runoff-^ TSS 50 50 50

PH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Transformers Polychlorinated Biphenyls No Discharge No Discharge No Discharge
Metal Cleaning Waste^ TSS 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max)
Copper, Total 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max)
Iron, Total 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max)
pH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
Boiler Blowdown TSS 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max) 30 (100 max)

Copper 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max)
Iron, Total 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max) 1.0 (1.0 max)
pH 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0 6.0 to 9.0
TSS = Total Suspended Solids
*Note: Numbers are concentrations, mg/1, except for pH values. Effluent limitations, except where otherwise
indicated, are monthly averages of daily amounts, mg. to be determined by the concentrations shown and
the flow of waste water from the source in question. In some cases there are limitations shown on the
maximum amount for any day. Where waste waters from one source with effluent limitations for a parti
cular pollutant are combined with other waste waters, the effluent limitation, mg (or mg/1), for the
particular pollutant, excluding pH, for the combined stream shall be the sum of the effluent limitations
(for concentration limits apply appropriate dilution factors) for each of the streams which contribute
to the combined stream except that the actual amount, mg (or mg/1), of the pollutant in a contributing
stream will be used in place of the effluent limitation for those contributing streams where the actual
amount, mg (or mg/1), of the pollutant is less than the effluent limitation, mg (or mg/1), for the
contributing steam. The pH value should be in the range given at all times.
**Note: Effluent limitations are average concentrations during a maximum of one 2-hour period a day and maximum
concentrations at any time. No more than one unit at a plant may be chlorinated at any time. Limita
tions are subject to case-by-case variances if higher levels or more lengthy period are needed for
condenser tube cleanliness.
1) Low Volume Waste Sources include but are not limited to: waste waters from wet scrubber air pollu
tion control systems, ion exchange water treatment evaporator blowdown, laboratory and sampling
streams, floor drainage, cooling tower basin cleaning wastes, and blowdown from recirculating house
service water systems.
2) Metal Cleaning wastes include any cleaning compounds, rinse waters, or any other waterborne residues
derived from cleaning any metal process equipment including, but not limited to, boiler tube clean
ing boiler fireside cleaning and air preheater cleaning.
3) Rainfall Runoff from construction areas and material storage areas for all rainfall events less than
or equal to the once in 10 year 24 hour event is to be treated.
(A) Note: Several of the provisions of the regulations establishing these limitations were set aside and remanded
to the EPA for further consideration on July 18, 1976 (9ERC1055).
A-14
FIGURE 3E
SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR HEAT TO THE WATERS OF THE U.S. ^
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
TYPE OF UNIT BPCTCA (1977) BATEA (1983)1 NEW SOURCE3
LARGE UNIT
500 MW(e) Operation Begun After 1/1/70 No Limitation No Discharge No Discharge

(July 1, 1981;
500 MW(e) Operation Begun After 1/1/74 No Limitation No Discharge No Discharge

(July 1, 1981)2
500 MW(e) Operation Begun After 1/1/70 No Limitation No Limitation -
500 MW(e) Operation Begun Before 1/1/74 No Limitation No Limitation -
SMALL UNIT ( 25 MW(e) or on a system No Limitation No Limitation No Discharge

150 MW(e))
1) EXEMPTIONS ARE PROVIDED FOR: a) coldside blowdown, b) hot side blowdown for systems under construction,
c) discharges into existing cooling ponds or cooling lakes, d) where sufficient land is not available, e) sites
where salt drift would cause a problem, f) sites where cooling tower fog would cause a substantial hazard to
commercial aviation.
2) A delay of up to two years may be granted for some plants on the basis of system reliability.
3) EXEMPTIONS ARE PROVIDED: a) coldside blowdown from recirculating cooling water systems, b) coldside blow
down from cooling ponds.
NOTE: 40CFR122 provides means whereby Thermal Discharge Limitations can be modified if the owner or operator
of a facility can demonstrate that less stringent limitations will protect fish and wildlife.
(a) Note: Provisions of the regulations establishing these limitations were set aside and remanded to the EPA
for further consideration on July 18, 1976 (9ERC1055).

Combined Cycle Power Plant Capital Cost Estimates: Electric Power Research Institute

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 Capital Cost Estimates: Electric Power Research Institute

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combined Cycle Power Plant

Capital Cost Estimates EPRI

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image

Final Report, December 1977

Electric Power Research Institute

EPRI Project Manager

DISTRIBUTION QF THIS DOCUMENT IS U

This report was prepared by Bechtel Power Corporation, as

Capital cost estimates have been prepared for oil-fueled, high

Plants have either a nominal net combined power output of

2. PLANT NO. 1 - GREAT LAKES LOCATION - CURRENT EPA 2-1

4. PLANT NO. 3 - WESTERN LOCATION - CURRENT EPA STANDARDS 4-1

5. PLANT NO. 4 - WESTERN LOCATION - METROPOLITAN ZONE 5-1

9. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS (Discussion of anticipated devel- 9-1

APPENDIX (See following page for listing of Figures

9B SIMPLE OPEN-CYCLE GAS TURBINE SPECIFIC 9-3

9C TREND OF COMBINED-CYCLE HEAT RATES 9-5

1A PLANT LOCATIONS AND SEISMIC ZONES A-l

IB RELATIVE PERFORMANCE CURVES A-2

1C RELATIVE MAINTENANCE COST FACTORS A_3

2 A-1 PLOT PLAN SINGLE UNIT DISTILLATE FUEL A-4

2 A-2 PLOT PLAN DOUBLE UNIT DISTILLATE FUEL A-5

2 A-3 PLOT PLAN SINGLE UNIT RESIDUAL FUEL A-6

2 A-4 PLOT PLAN DOUBLE UNIT RESIDUAL FUEL A-7

2B- 1 DIAGRAM OF POWER PLANT PROCESS A-8

2C-2 RESIDUAL FUEL OIL SYSTEM FOR 250 MW PLANT A-10

3B PARTICULATE EMISSION AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY A-12

3C NITROGEN OXIDES EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT AIR A-13

3D SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES A-14

3E SUMMARY OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES A-15

1-1 SITE DATA 1-8

1-2 TYPICAL PROPERTIES, LIQUID FUELS 1-9

8-1 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE SUMMARIES FOR 8-6

8-2 ORDER OF MAGNITUDE ESTIMATE SUMMARIES FOR 8-7

Plant Locations, Design Conditions and Fuels

1 Great Lakes WI Kenosha

Four of the plants. No.'s 1, 3, 5 and 6, are at the same loca­

Fuels for the plants were established by EPRI as distillates

Physical and chemical properties of the liquid fuels to be

Federal emissions standards can be met when using most distil­

Emissions standards in the Los Angeles Metropolitan area are

1 Great Lakes, 272 $88.0 $324 258 $ 94.5 $366

2 Sou thwe s t, 273 83.6 306 259 89.4 345

3 Western, 1) 265 97 . 1 366 251 104.6 417

4 Western, 275 86.0 313 261 92.4 3) 354

5 Northeast , 272 96.4 354 258 103.9 403

2 Southwest 546 159.7 292 518 171.0 330

3 Western 1) 530 182.3 344 502 197.0 392

1) At this remote location

Capital cost estimates for Plant No. 4, 2% lower than Plant

Power plant data are established for the estimates and

Particular locations were selected in each region that

In the Western region, plant locations in urban and

After selection of the plant locations, data for each

Type of foundations assumed are piles in the Great Lakes

Seismic zones affect the plant design and costs. Zone 1

Plant elevations and ambient temperatures can have a

For this study, commercially available equipment was

Fuels are assumed to be received by rail in tank cars

1.3 Environmental and Noise Requirements

Plants in this study will satisfy the environmental and

Four of the plants. No.'s 1, 3, 5 and 6, are at the same loca

Federal emissions standards can be met when using most distil

Item (f) - to primary and secondary treatment facil

Item (h) - to the cooling tower basin as supplemen

The life of gas turbine hot parts depends to a large ex

For simplicity in presentation, only two gas turbine gene