A Design of 27 MW Power Plant in Pampanga

A DESIGN OF 27 MW
POWER PLANT IN
PAMPANGA
Power Plant Design

PRESENTING
THE TEAM
TA G A L A HONTIVEROS PA G S I B I G A N
SHAIRAH D AV E F R A N C I S L AW RE NC E
LEADER
D AY R I T LORIA
DANIEL MARQUIS CANE
© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 2

INTRODUCTION
Power Demand
According to the 2016-2040 Power Development Plan, despite the
country’s global risks and uncertainties due to natural calamities
such as Sendong (2011), Pablo (2012) and Yolanda (2013) the
power consumption of Filipinos still grew by 19.14% with an AAGR
of 4.49% during the year 2011-2015
As per grid basis, the electric consumption can be represented as

percentage. Luzon is our country’s center of commerce, major
economic developments & industrial advancements, it sustained its
major share in electric consumption at 74.99% followed by Visayas
at 13.60% and Mindanao at 12.42%

INTRODUCTION
The Client
Pampanga II Electric Cooperative, Inc. commonly known as
PELCO II is one of the 14 electric cooperatives in Region III and
was registered and incorporated on April 23, 1979, the date of its
first energization is November 15, 1979.
PELCO II energizes a total of 175 barangays, which is a part of 7

municipalities namely;
• Bacolor
• Guagua
• Sasmuan
• Lubao
• Sta.Rita
• Porac
• Mabalacat

INTRODUCTION
Power Demand
The Distribution Development Plan 2016-2025 published by
Department of Energy, includes a projection for the peak demand
for each electric company including PELCO II.
YEA Projected Peak Demand (MW)

R
2015 76.3
1
2016 85.3
3
2017 88.1
8
2018 94.0
7
2019 100.
1
2020 106.22
2021 11 2 . 3 8
2 0 2All2 rights reserved.

© 2018 Slidefabric.com 11 8 . 5 5 S L I D E 5
INTRODUCTION
Power Demand
C A PA C I T Y O F T H E P L A N T PROJECTION
In determining the capacity of the power plant to be designed, the The proponents used the projected peak demand of PELCO II for
proponents considered the projected peak demand for PELCO II in the year 2022, because the proponents considered the time
the year 2022 and the peak load of PELCO II as of March 31, 2018 required for the construction of the power plants
D E T E R M I N I N G T H E C A PA C I T Y C O M P U T AT I O N
To determine the capacity of the power plant the proponents 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑑 − 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑
deducted the actual current peak load of PELCO II to the
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 118.55 𝑀𝑊 − 91.937𝑀𝑊
projected peak demand of PELCO II for the year 2022 with
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 = 26.613 𝑀𝑊 ≈ 𝟐𝟕 𝑴𝑾
accordance to the DOE’s projection.

INTRODUCTION
Objectives
GENERAL OBJECTIVE
The proponents aim to design and select the appropriate power

plant to be constructed in Pampanga with a capacity of 27 MW that
can help Pampanga to adapt to future power demands by 2022.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES
• To design a total of three (3) alternative power plants, namely;

Diesel Power Plant, Coal-Fired Power Plant and Solar Power Plant
with two (2) options each.
• To analyze and assess the three (3) mentioned alternative power
plants with accordance to the Codes and Standards for power plant
design.
• To decide on which of the best options among the alternative
power plants and options are best suited and efficient for the
province of Pampanga using constraints and trade-offs.

INTRODUCTION
Scope & Delimitations

SOLAR POWER PLANT
DIESEL POWER PLANT
Scope Delimitation Scope Delimitation
Computations for: The proponents didn’t include Computations for: The proponents didn’t include
• Diesel generator set the plant layout for the diesel • Solar Modules the plant layout for the solar
• Thermal efficiencies, heat power plant • Land Area power plant
rates • Capital Cost, O&M cost
• Cooling system • Rate of Return
• Machine Foundation
• Capital Cost, O&M cost
• Rate of Return
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT
Scope Delimitation
Computations for: The proponents didn’t include
• Steam turbine/s the plant layout for the coal-
• Boiler/s fired power plant, the
• Cooling system/s computations for pulverizer,
• Machine Foundation scrubber, and filters.
• Capital Cost, O&M cost
• Rate of Return

SELECTION
Power Plants
DIESEL POWER PLANT
The proponents considered diesel power plant as an alternative

design for a power plant since one of the advantages of a diesel
power plant is it doesn’t require a large amount of capital cost and it
is easy to construct compared to other types of power plants
FA C T O R S C O N S I D E R E D
Availability of Land is not a problem in Pampanga since there are

still many unused land and one of the advantages of a diesel power
plant is it doesn’t require a lot of space.
Foundation one of the important factors to consider is the

foundation specially in Diesel Power Plant where it requires a good
foundation because of the vibration it can cause and it can be
dangerous for the people around the power plant,

SELECTION
Power Plants
COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT
The proponents considered coal-fired power plant as an alternative
design since according to the Department of Energy, the coal
reserves in the Philippines amounts to a total of 2,386,700,000
tons. In addition, as stated by IEA Clean Coal Centre, there is
potentially up to 270 billion tons of coal resources in the
Philippines.
FA C T O R S C O N S I D E R E D
There are already 2 existing coal-fired power plants in Pampanga,

namely APEC and ANDA with capacities of 50MW and 83.7MW
respectively.

SELECTION
Power Plants
SOLAR POWER PLANT
The proponents considered solar power plant as an alternative
Pampanga is known for its 22 MW Solar Power Plant in Clark, also
design since based on NREL, the potential photovoltaic electricity
it is famous for its potential for Solar Power Plant.
production in Pampanga is 4 to 4.5 kWh/kWp.

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Diesel Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
27 MW Diesel Power Plant – Option 1 (DM5415-06) 27 MW Diesel Power Plant – Option 1 (16CM32C)
Power Station Power Station
Total Energy Chargeable 81,438 kW Total Energy Chargeable 72,095.7184 kW
Plant Rated Capacity 32,900 kW Plant Rated Capacity 30,720 kW
Plant Net Capacity 29,939 kW Plant Net Capacity 27,955.2 kW
Total Auxiliary Power 2,961 kW Total Auxiliary Power 2764.8 kW
Over-all Station Thermal Efficiency 36.76% Over-all Station Thermal Efficiency 38.78 %
Diesel-Generator Set Specification Diesel-Generator Set Specification
Number of Units 7 units Number of Units 4 units
Manufacturer Caterpillar Manufacturer Caterpillar
Model Number PRIME DM5414-06 Model Number 16CM32C
Speed 900 RPM Speed 720 RPM
Frequency 60 Hz Frequency 60 Hz
Bore x Stroke (DxL) 0.28m x 0.3m Bore x Stroke (DxL) 0.32m x 0.46m
Displacement per cylinder 0.0185 m3 Displacement per cylinder 592 Liters
Dimension (LxWxH) 10.2617m x 2.5303m x 3.9777m Dimension (LxWxH) 10.51m x 3m x 5.661m
Weight 64,338.20 kg Weight 308,647 lbf or 140,001.3608 kg

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Diesel Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
Machine Foundation (Per Unit) Machine Foundation (Per Unit)
Machine Foundation Dimension Machine Foundation Dimension
Top Dimension (L x W) 39.3667 ft x 14.30167 ft Top Dimension (L x W) 40.5 ft x 15.8333 ft
Bottom Dimension (L’ x W’) 44.4401 ft x 19.0751 ft Bottom Dimension (L’ x W’) 53.815 ft x 28.5031 ft
Height (h) 4.1339 ft Height (h) 6.3349 ft
Clearance 3 ft Clearance 3 ft
Spread Footed Angle 30° Spread Footed Angle 30°
Bed Plate Dimension (a x b) 2.53035m x 10.2616m Bed Plate Dimension (a x b) 3m x 10.51m
Weight & Volume Weight & Volume
Weight of the Machine Foundation Weight of the Machine Foundation
(WF) 436,355.3647 lbf (WF) 1,006,731.317 lbf
Volume of the Machine Foundation Volume of the Machine Foundation
(VF) 1015.6144 ft3 (VF) 6,711.5421 ft3
Weight of the Engine (WE) 141,840 lbf Weight of the Engine (WE) 308,647 lbf
Min. Weight of the Foundation Min. Weight of the Foundation (min.
(min. WF) 425,520 lbf WF) 925,941 lbf
Safety Safety
Factor of Safety (FS) 3 Factor of Safety (FS) 3
𝑙𝑏𝑓 𝑙𝑏
Induced Stress (SI) 682.076 𝑓𝑡 2 Induced Stress (SI) 857.5417 𝑓𝑡𝑓2
𝑙𝑏 𝑙𝑏
Design Stress (SD) 1000 𝑓𝑡𝑓2 1000 𝑓𝑡𝑓2
Design Stress (SD)
Type of Soil Sand Type of Soil Sand
Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil 𝑙𝑏 𝑙𝑏
© 2018 Slidefabric.com 3000 𝑓𝑡𝑓2 Safe Bearing Capacity of Soil (SBC) 3000 𝑓𝑡𝑓2 13
(SBC)All rights reserved. S L I D E
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Diesel Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
Cementing Materials Estimation For the Whole Power Plant
Cementing Materials Total Cementing Materials Total
Number of Bags of Cement 4025 bags of cement Number of Bags of Cement 5304 bags of cement
Volume of Sand 8050 ft3 Volume of Sand 10608 ft3
Volume Gravel 16,100 ft3 Volume Gravel 21,216 ft3
Volume of Water 28,175 ft3 Volume of Water 4963.6364 ft3
Weight of Reinforcement Steel Weight of Reinforcement Steel Bars 9133.0064 kg to 18266.0132 kg
6927.5325 kg to 13855.065 kg
Bars Power Plant Economics Power Plant Economics
Capital Cost Php. 1,546,858,406 Capital Cost Php. 1,446,653,816
Operations and Maintenance Cost Operations and Maintenance Cost
O&M Cost per kW 0.02 USD/kW-h O&M Cost per kW 0.02 USD/kW-hr
O&M Cost Php. 271,805,393.2 per year O&M Cost Php. 281,421,545 per year
Gross Income Gross Income
Load Generation Price 3.788 Php/kW-hr Load Generation Price 3.788 Php/kW-hr
Gross Income Php. 1,003,108,508 per year Gross Income Php. 930,769,829.1
Value Added Tax (VAT) Value Added Tax (VAT)
VAT Percentage 12% VAT Percentage 12%
VAT Php. 120,373,020.9 VAT Php. 111,316,085.6
Net Profit Net Profit
Net Profit Php. 610,930.093 Net Profit Php. 534,896,415.9
Return of Investment (ROI) Return of Investment (ROI)
Return of Investment 39.49% Return of Investment 36.97 %
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Coal Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
27 MW Coal Power Plant – Option 1 (SST 150) 27 MW Coal Power Plant – Option 2 (SST 100)
Computed Data Computed Data
Higher Heating Value 10,406.7502 Kj/Kg Higher Heating Value 10,406.7502 Kj/Kg
Mass of Fuel 16.0536 Kg/s Mass of Fuel 16.0536 Kg/s
Air fuel ratio theoretical 3.3887 Kga/Kgf Air fuel ratio theoretical 3.3887 Kga/Kgf
Percent excess air 31.32% Percent excess air 31.32%
Air fuel ratio actual 4.45 Kga/Kgf Air fuel ratio actual 4.45 Kga/Kgf
Mass of Air 71.4385 Kg/s Mass of Air 71.4385 Kg/s
Chimney Chimney
Head of Stack 50 m Head of Stack 52m
Volume flow of gas 117.0640 m^3/s Volume flow of gas 117.0640 m^3/s
Velocity of gas 15.6370 m/s Velocity of gas 15.9467 m/s
Diameter 3.0874 m Diameter 3.0573 m
Boiler Boiler
Heat adsorbed 129396.2839 kW Heat adsorbed 110390.1702 kW
Heat Rejected 93742.0307 kW Heat Rejected 74085.7024 kW
Work Pump 172.4754 kW Work Pump 139.7680 kW
Steam Rate 5.7899 kg/kW-hr Steam Rate 4.6326 kg/kW-hr
Developed Boiler Horsepower 32349.071 HP Developed Boiler Horsepower 11250.9096 HP

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Coal Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
Turbine Turbine
Number of units 2 Number of units 5
Power Output 32070.9275 kW Power Output 31527.5212 kW
Net Power 28062.0616 Net Power 27586.5811 kW
Thermal Efficiency 32.8874 % Thermal Efficiency 27.5543 %
Cooling Tower Cooling Tower
Cooling Tower Efficiency 66.67 % Cooling Tower Efficiency 66.67 %
Mass of Cooling Water 1,769.4221 kg/sec Mass of Cooling Water 2,238.8830 kg/sec
Pump Capacity 28190.6322 gal/min Pump Capacity 35670.6206 gal/min
Capital Cost Estimation Capital Cost Estimation
Capital Cost 3,686,303,037 Php Capital Cost 3,624,118,832 Php
Land Cost 554,642,289.6 Php Land Cost 545,244,489.2 Php
Cost of Foundation 422,636.02 Php Cost of Foundation 691,584.34 Php
Income 931180021.6 Php/year Income 915402207.6 Php/year
Fixed O&M 61,773,712.07 Php/year Fixed O&M 60,727,024.95 Php/year
Variable O&M 59,126,686.5 Php/year Variable O&M 69,749,820.35 Php/year
Total O&M 120,900,398.6 Php/year Total O&M 130,476,845.3 Php/year
Net Profit 810279623 Php/year Net Profit 784925362.3 Php/year
Total Investment 5,890,200,723 Php Total Investment 5,790,673,906 Php
ROI 21.98 %% ROI 21.66%

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Solar Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
27 MW Solar Power Plant – Monocrystalline Solar Module 27 MW Solar Power Plant – Polycrystalline Solar Module
Rated Capacity 27 MW Rated Capacity 27 MW
Total Number of PV Module 72 000 modules Total Number of PV Module 75 000modules
Land Area 17.12 Hectares Land Area 17.73 Hectares
Averaged Direct Normal Radiation 4.8
𝑘𝑊ℎ Averaged Direct Normal Radiation 4.8
𝑘𝑊ℎ
𝑚2 𝑚2
Actual Energy Generated (Ep) 111 538.2682 kWh Actual Energy Generated (Ep) 111 575.6554 kWh
Annual Sun Peak Hours 5.25 hours Annual Sun Peak Hours 5.25 hours
Number of Inverters 8 Number of Inverters 8
Inverter Efficiency 98 % Inverter Efficiency 98 %
PV System Grid-tied PV System Grid-tied
Foundation Option Earthscrews Foundation Option Earthscrews
Solar Module Characteristics Solar Module Characteristics
Power Rating per Module 375 W Power Rating per Module 360 W
Module Efficiency 18.15 % Module Efficiency 17.12 %
Cell Area 𝑚2 Cell Area 𝑚2
0.012286 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙 0.012286 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙
Area of Module 1.984 m2 Area of Module 1.984 m2
No. of Cells per Module 144 cells No. of Cells per Module 144 cells
Length of Module 2.0 m Length of Module 2m
Width of Module 0.992 m Width of Module 0.992 m
ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS
Solar Power Plant

OPTION 1 OPTION 2
Power Plant Economics Power Plant Economics
Capital Cost Php 3,700,719,598.00 Capital Cost Php 3,643,708,528.00
Operation and Maintenance Cost Php 84 706 560.00 Operation and Maintenance Cost Php 84 706 560.00
Generation Charge Php 165 993 616.6 per year
Feed-in-Tariff Php 394 088 786.4 Generation Charge Php 166 048 506.7 per year
Gross Annual Income Php 560 082 403.00 Feed-in-Tariff Php 394 219 102.1
Gross Annual Income Php 560 267 608.8
Net Annual Income Php 475 375 843.00
Net Annual Income Php 475 561 048.8
Return of Investment (ROI) 12.85 %
Return of Investment (ROI) 16.45 %
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost Breakdown
Cost of Modules Php 893 654 208.00
Cost of Modules Php 794 829 888.00
Cost of Inverters Php 211 766 400.00
Cost of Inverters Php 211 766 400.00
Owner’s Cost Php 268 237 440.00 Owner’s Cost Php 268 237 440.00
Land Cost Php 843,655,000.00 Land Cost Php 886,510,000.00
Cost of Structure Php 1 143 538 560.00 Cost of Structure Php 1 143 538 560.00
Engineering Procurement Cost Php 77 647 680.00 Engineering Procurement Cost Php 77 647 680.00
Balance of System Cost (BOS) Php 261 178 560.00 Balance of System Cost (BOS) Php 261 178 560.00

ANALYSIS OF DESIGN OPTIONS
Constraints & Trade-

SCORING AND RANKING
Constraints Economical
offs
Environmental Societal Health & Safety Manufacturability Sustainability Total
Economical - 0 1 1 1 1 4
Environmental 1 - 1 1 1 1 5
Societal 0 0 - 0 1 0 1
Health & Safety 0 0 1 - 1 1 3
Manufacturability 0 0 0 0 - 0 0
Sustainability 0 0 1 0 1 - 2
Total: 15
Constraint Score Rank

Environmental 5 1st
Economical 4 2nd
Health & Safety 3 3rd


PERCENT WEIGHT
Constraint
offs Rank Weight (%)
Environmental 1st 50
Economical 2nd 33
Health & Safety 3rd 17
Percent Weight
17%
50%
33%
Environmental Economical Healthy and Safety


C O N S T R A I N T S C O N S I D E R AT I O N offs
E N V I R O N M E N TA L H E A LT H & S A F E T Y
•Land Use (LAU) [Office of Energy and Renewable Energy] • Noise Exposure – According to the Philippine Mechanical Code
Minimum LAU of 1 acre per megawatt; maximum of 19 acres per Max. Sound Level (Slow
Hours of exposure per day, Hrs.
megawatt. Response), dB
8 90
•Water Consumption (WC) [Willie D. Jones; IEEE Spectrum] 6 92
Minimum WC of 530 liters per megawatt-hour; maximum of 31,200 4 95
3 97
liters per megawatt-hour. 2 100
1.5 102
ECONOMICAL 1 105
0.5 110
• Capital Cost. Principal amount of money needed for the 0.25 115*
construction of the power plant.
• WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter – 25 μg/m3
• O&M Cost. Cost of maintaining and operation of the power plant
• Return of Investment. Rate of return of the money invested for
the power plant


R AT I N G D E S C R I P T I O N
offs
Description
Rating
Numerical Remarks
1 Not at all satisfied The constraints for the specific options were not at all satisfied. Ranges
from 1% - 17%
2 Slightly Satisfied The constraints for the specific options were slightly satisfied. Ranges
from 18% - 33%
3 Moderately Satisfied The constraints for the specific options were moderately satisfied.
Ranges from 34% - 50%
4 Satisfied The constraints for the specific options were satisfied. Ranges from 51%
- 66%
5 Very Satisfied The constraints for the specific options were very satisfied. Ranges from
67% - 83%
6 Extremely Satisfied The constraints for the specific options were extremely satisfied. Ranges
from 84% - 100%

R AT I N G D E S C R I P T I O N
Constraints
Power Plant Type
Specific constraints
offs
DM5415-06
Diesel Power Plant
16CM32C SST150
Coal Power Plant
SST100
Solar Power Plant
Mono-crystalline Poly-crystalline
Land use, Acres/MW 0.1609 0.8899 0.8757 1.56 1.62

0.1512 (Computed)
(Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed)
Environmental
Water consumption, 33,102.1149 22,387.0922 557.6926 722.7241 No water consumption No water consumption
Liters/(MW-hour) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed)
Capital Cost of Power 1,546,858,406 1,446,653,816 3,686,303,037 3,624,118,832 3,700,719,598 3,643,708,528

Plants in Philippine Pesos (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed)
Operating & Maintenance

271,805,393.2 281,421,545 120,900,398.6 130,476,845.3 84,706,560 84,706,560
Cost of Power Plants in
Economical (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed)
PhP,
Return of Investment 39.49 % 36.97 % 21.66 12.85% 13.05%

21.98 (Computed)
Percentage per year (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed) (Computed)
Allowable Noise Exposure

93.0 dBA 93.0 dBA 95 dBA 95 dBA
of Power Plant Operators, No Noise Produced No Noise Produced
(Tested by CAT) (Tested by CAT) (2017 IJEDR) (2017 IJEDR)
dB
Safety
20 20 15 15
Particulate Matter (PM) in
(International Council on (International Council on (Assessment of Coal-Fired (Assessment of Coal-Fired No PM Emission No PM Emission
𝜇g/m3
Combustion Engines) Combustion Engines) Boiler Air Emissions) Boiler Air Emissions)

C O M P U TAT I O N F O R R AT I N G
ACQUISITION
Percentage
offs Operation & Maintenance Cost
17% Value @ 17%
𝑋1 Value @ X1
𝑋2 Value @ X2
𝑋3 Value @ X3
51% Value @ 51%
100% Value @ 100%
𝑋1 − 17% Value @𝑋1 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 @17%

=
51% − 17% 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 @51% − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 @17%


EMISSION
Percentage
offs
C O M P U TAT I O N F O R R AT I N G A C Q U I S I T I O N – N O I S E
Noise Emission
17% Coal 1 & 2 (95 dBA)
X1 Diesel 1 & 2 (93 dBA)
51% 90 dBA
100% Solar 1 & 2 (0 dBA)
USING THE FORMULA:
𝑋1 − 17% 93 − 95
=
51% − 17% 90 − 95
𝑋1 = 30.6 %

SENSITIVITY
POSSIBLE ARRANGEMENTS ANALYSIS
Percent Weight 50% 33% 17%
1st Arrangement Environmental Economic Health & Safety
2nd Arrangement Environmental Health & Safety Economic
3rd Arrangement Economic Environmental Health & Safety
4th Arrangement Economic Health & Safety Environmental
5th Arrangement Health & Safety Environmental Economic
6th Arrangement Health & Safety Economic Environmental

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 1 ST A R R A N G E M E N T
Power Plant Type

ANALYSIS
Diesel Power Plant Coal Power Plant Solar Power Plant
Constraint Specific Constraints DM5415-06 16CM32C SST-150 SST-100 Mono Poly
Land Use 6 6 4 4 1 1
Environmental
Water Consumption 1 2 6 6 6 6
Total Average 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58
Environmental (50%) 0.29 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.29 0.29
Capital Cost 6 6 2 2 1 2
Operational &
Economical 1 2 3 3 6 6
Maintenance Cost
Return of Investment 6 6 4 4 1 2
Total Average 0.72 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.56
Economical (33%) 0.24 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.18
Noise Emission 2 2 1 1 6 6
Health & Safety
Particle Matter 4 4 5 5 6 6
Total Average 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 1
Health & Safety (17%) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.17

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 1 ST A R R A N G E M E N T
Rank Design Option

ANALYSIS
1ST ARRANGEMENT
1 Diesel 2
Diesel 1 Diesel 2 Coal 1 Coal 2 Solar 1 Solar 2
2 Coal 2
69 68
62 64
3 Solar 2 61
51
4 Diesel 1
5 Solar 1
6 Coal 1
1st

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 2 ND A R R A N G E M E N T
Power Plant Type

ANALYSIS
Land Use 6 6 4 4 1 1
Environmental 1 2 6 6 6 6
Water Consumption
Total Average 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58

Environmental (50%) 0.29 0.34 0.42 0.42 0.29 0.29
Operational &
Economical 1 2 3 3 6 6
Maintenance Cost
6 6 4 4 1 2
Return of Investment
Total Average 0.72 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.56

Economical (17%) 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.10
Health & Safety
Total Average 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 1
Health & Safety (33%) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.33

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 2 ND A R R A N G E M E N T
Rank Design Option

ANALYSIS
2ND ARRANGEMENT
1 Solar 2
2 Solar 1
3 Coal 1 72
68 68 69
3 Coal 2 64
58
5 Diesel 2
6 Diesel 1
2nd

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 3 RD A R R A N G E M E N T
Power Plant Type

ANALYSIS
Land Use 6 6 4 4 1 1
Water Consumption
Total Average 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58

Environmental (33%) 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19
Operational &
1 2 3 3 6 6
Economical Maintenance Cost
6 6 4 4 1 2
Total Average 0.72 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.56

Economical (50%) 0.36 0.39 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.28
Health & Safety
Total Average 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 1
Health & Safety (17%) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.17

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 3 RD A R R A N G E M E N T
Rank Design Option

ANALYSIS
1 Diesel 2
3RD ARRANGEMENT
2 Diesel 1
70
2 Solar 2 64 64
61 61
58
3 Coal 1
3 Coal 2
6 Solar 1
3rd

SENSITIVITY
F O R T H E 4 TH A R R A N G E M E N T
Power Plant Type ANALYSIS
Land Use 6 6 4 4 1 1
Water Consumption
Total Average 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58

Environmental (17%) 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.10
Operational &
1 2 3 3 6 6
6 6 4 4 1 2
Total Average 0.72 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.56

Economical (50%) 0.36 0.39 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.28
Health & Safety
Total Average 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 1
Health & Safety (33%) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.33 0.33

SENSITIVITY
Rank Design Option
ANALYSIS
1 Solar 2
4TH ARRANGEMENT
2 Solar 1
3 Coal 1
3 Coal 2 71
67 65
63
5 Diesel 2 56 56
6 Diesel 1
4th

SENSITIVITY
Power Plant Type ANALYSIS
Land Use 6 6 4 4 1 1
Water Consumption
Total Average 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58

Environmental (33%) 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.19
Operational &
1 2 3 3 6 6
6 6 4 4 1 2
Total Average 0.72 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.56

Economical (17%) 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.10
Health & Safety
Total Average 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 1
Health & Safety (50%) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50
SENSITIVITY
Rank Design Option

ANALYSIS
1 Solar 2
5TH ARRANGEMENT
2 Solar 1
3 Coal 1 79
76
3 Coal 2
60 61 61
5 Diesel 2 56
6 Diesel 1
5th

SENSITIVITY
Power Plant Type

ANALYSIS
Land Use 6 6 4 4 1 1
Water Consumption
Total Average 0.58 0.67 0.83 0.83 0.58 0.58

Environmental (17%) 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.10
Operational &
1 2 3 3 6 6
6 6 4 4 1 2
Total Average 0.72 0.78 0.50 0.50 0.44 0.56

Economical (33%) 0.24 0.26 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.18
Health & Safety
Total Average 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1 1
Health & Safety (50%) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50
SENSITIVITY
Rank Design Option
ANALYSIS
6TH ARRANGEMENT
1 Solar 1
1 Solar 2
3 Diesel 2 75 75
4 Diesel 1 62
59
56 56
5 Coal 1
5 Coal 2
6th

SENSITIVITY
FOR THE ALL OF THE ARRANGEMENT
ANALYSIS All Arrangements
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

THANK YOU

A Design of 27 MW Power Plant in Pampanga

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Design of 27 MW Power Plant in Pampanga

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A DESIGN OF 27 MW

Power Plant Design

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 2

As per grid basis, the electric consumption can be represented as

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 3

PELCO II energizes a total of 175 barangays, which is a part of 7

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 4

YEA Projected Peak Demand (MW)

2 0 2All2 rights reserved.

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 6

The proponents aim to design and select the appropriate power

• To design a total of three (3) alternative power plants, namely;

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 7

Scope & Delimitations

Scope Delimitation Scope Delimitation

COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 8

The proponents considered diesel power plant as an alternative

Availability of Land is not a problem in Pampanga since there are

Foundation one of the important factors to consider is the

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 9

There are already 2 existing coal-fired power plants in Pampanga,

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 10

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 11

Diesel Power Plant

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 12

Diesel Power Plant

Diesel Power Plant

Coal Power Plant

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 15

Coal Power Plant

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 16

Solar Power Plant

Solar Power Plant

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 18

Constraints & Trade-

Health & Safety 0 0 1 - 1 1 3

Constraint Score Rank

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 19

Constraints & Trade-

Health & Safety 3rd 17

Environmental Economical Healthy and Safety

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 20

Constraints & Trade-

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 21

Constraints & Trade-

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 22

Land use, Acres/MW 0.1609 0.8899 0.8757 1.56 1.62

Capital Cost of Power 1,546,858,406 1,446,653,816 3,686,303,037 3,624,118,832 3,700,719,598 3,643,708,528

Operating & Maintenance

Return of Investment 39.49 % 36.97 % 21.66 12.85% 13.05%

Allowable Noise Exposure

Constraints & Trade-

𝑋1 − 17% Value @𝑋1 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 @17%

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 24

Constraints & Trade-

USING THE FORMULA:

© 2018 Slidefabric.com All rights reserved. S L I D E 25

1st Arrangement Environmental Economic Health & Safety

2nd Arrangement Environmental Health & Safety Economic

3rd Arrangement Economic Environmental Health & Safety

4th Arrangement Economic Health & Safety Environmental

5th Arrangement Health & Safety Environmental Economic