Article thumbnail

Feasibility Study for the Ivano-Frankivsk District Heating Repowering: Analysis of Options

By L. Markel, A. Popelka and V. Laskarevsky

Abstract

Part of the U.S. Initiative on Joint Implementation with the Ukraine Inter-Ministerial Commission on Climate Change, financed by the US Department of Energy. The project was implemented by a team consisting of the US company SenTech, Inc. and the Ukrainian company Esco-West. The main objective of the effort was to assess available alternatives of Ivano-Frankivsk (I-F) District Heating repowering and provide information for I-F's investment decision process. This study provides information on positive and negative technical and economic aspects of available options. Three options were analyzed for technical merit and economic performance: 1. Installation of cogeneration system based on Gas Turbine (GT) and Heat Recovery Heat Exchanger with thermal capacity of 30 MW and electrical capacity of 13.5 MW. This Option assumes utilization of five existing boilers with total capacity of 221 MW. Existing boilers will be equipped with modern controls. Equipment in this Option was sized for longest operating hours, about 8000 based on the available summer baseload. 2. Installation of Gas Turbine Combined Cycle (GTCC) and Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) with thermal capacity 45 MW and electrical capacity of 58.7 MW. This Option assumes utilization of five existing boilers with total capacity of 221 MW. Existing boilers will be equipped with modern controls. The equipment was sized for medium, shoulder season thermal load, and some cooling was assumed during the summer operation for extension of operating hours for electricity production. 3. Retrofit of six existing boilers (NGB) with total thermal capacity of 255.9 MW by installation of modern control system and minor upgrades. This option assumes only heat production with minimum investment. The best economic performance and the largest investment cost would result from alternative GTCC. This alternative has positive Net Present Value (NPV) with discount rate lower than about 12%, and has IRR slightly above 12%. The lowest economic results, and the lowest required investment, would result from alternative NGB. This Option's NPV is negative even at 0% discount rate, and would not become positive even by improving some parameters within a reasonable range. The Option with Gas Turbine displays relatively modest results and the NPV is positive for low discount rate, higher price of sold electricity and lower cost of natural gas. The IRR of this alternative is 9.75%, which is not very attractive. The largest influences on the investment are from the cost of electricity sold to the grid, the heat tariff, and the cost of natural gas. Assuming the implementation of the GTCC alternative, the benefit of the project is also reflected in lower Green House Emissions

Topics: Natural Gas, District Heating, Boilers, Heat Recovery, Cogeneration, Interest Rate, Steam Generators Joint Implementation, 29 Energy Planning, Policy And Economy, Electricity, Gas Turbines, 32 Energy Conservation, Consumption, And Utilization, Combined Cycles, Joint Implementation, Prices, 03 Natural Gas, Heat Exchangers, Control Systems, Repowering
Publisher: Sentech, Inc. (United States)
Year: 2002
DOI identifier: 10.2172/806251
OAI identifier:
Provided by: UNT Digital Library
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://digital.library.unt.edu... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.