_PJ

_



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 198)11-1-3 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 198 of 276

### P. 2

•WI&&-

•• ; ->/.A - 

# ^Energy^In f brmatio n Administratio n H V 

# mm •-LA~ 1 ' : * : &M

•.'•CfeVuTjEftf l



### ^"'• ' - »^- 1 

### . . . " H .

! •

* t '• 

## \ 

## I - /

'-\ |P. 3 

### DOE/EIA-050 9 - / Distributio n Categor

yUC-d'S >
• « * 

## Ma : 2<*&r,

r fNTF.NH ^


# Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs o f Lif e Extensio n fo r .il-Fue l Stea m Plant

s

Jul y 198 8

Energy Informatio n Administratio n Offic e o f Coal , Nuclear , Electri can d Alternat e Fuel s U.S

. Departmen t o

f Energy Washington , D

C 2058 5

Jhi s repor t was prepare d b yth e Energ yInformatio n Administration , th e independen t statistica l an d * /y& na M*ca\

agenc ywithi n th e Departmen t o f Energy

. Th e informatio n containe d herei n shoul d no t b e A^S construe d a s advocatin g o rnecessaril yreflectin g an ypolic ypositio n o f th e Departmen t o f Energ yo r o f an yothe rorganization

.

### P. 4

• • . Tn-. i publicatio n i s availabl e fromth e Superintenden t of Documents
. U.S
. Governmen t Printing Offic e (GPO)
. Orderin c infoi

' H ^ A** 

## .*a&&*^3%%.

2/L2A

• '- " "* 7

• • .



# as s -;>^2^ ;

^'v'% B
. r^at*^. -
. ' .- , tW-aV W

1P. 5



# Preface

Sectio n 20 5 (a)(2 ) o f

th e Departmen t

o f Energ y Or

ganizatio n Ac t

(Publi c La w 95-91 ) require s th e Ad

ministrato r

o f th e Energ y Informatio n Administratio n (EIA ) t o carr y ou t

acomprehensiv e progra mo f energ y dat acollectio n an danalysis
. EI A i s responsibl e fo r providin g timely , high-qualit y energ y informatio n an d objective , credibl e analysi s t o suppor t th e deliberation s o f decisionmakers
. I n thi s regard , thi s repor t provide s c ; t estimate s fo r

lif e extensio n o f

fossil-fue l stea m plants , on e o f

th e man y option s utilitie s hav e fo r meet
in g th e futur e deman dfo r electricity
. Today , utilitie s ar e face dwit hcomple x decision s abou t ho w the y wil l mee t

th e futur e deman dfo r electricity
. Man y differen t

option s exist
. Th e refurbishmen t (lif e extension ) o f

existin g powe r

plant s ha s recentl y re ceive dwidesprea dattention
. I n thi s report , lif e exten
sio n refer s t o capita l investment s mad e b y utilitie s t o kee p aplan t

operatin g a t

acceptabl e level s o f

availabil

it y an defficienc y 2 0 year s beyon dit s originall y antic

ipate dretiremen t

date
. Refurbishe dplant s ar e assume d t o b e returne dt o thei r origina l operatin g condition
. B y refurbishin g olde r

plants , utilitie s ma y b e abl e t o operat e plant s pas t

thei r origina l retiremen t

date s an d postpon e th e nee dfo r

ne w powe r

sources . Th e capita l cost s presente di nthi s repor t ar e develope d primaril y fo r

us e inEI A model s an dar e onl y on e com ponen t o f th e informatio nneede dt o evaluat e variou s option s fo r

meetin g demand
. Thi s repor t (1 ) discusse s th e reason s fo r

th e curren t

interes t in lif e extension , (2 ) describe s th e factor s tha t migh t influenc e autility' s decisio n t o life-extend , (3 ) develop s amethodolog y fo r estimatin g overnigh t

capita l cost s fo r

lif e extensio n o f fossil-fue l stea mplants , an d(4 ) usin g th e methodolog y developed , estimate s averag e regiona l an dnationa l cost s fo r lif e extension
.

Energ y informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP. 6



# Contact s

Genera l informatio n regardin g th e preparatio n an dThi s report wa s prepare di

n th e Offic e of

Coal , Nuclear , conten t of thi s publicatio n ma

y b e obtaine dfro

mElectri c andAlternat e Fuel s b y J
. Ala nBeamon Robert T
. Eynon , Chief

of th e Dat aAnalysi s an d(202/586-4434 ) andWillia mG
. Gillespi e Forecastin g Branc h(202/586-9850 ) o r Arthu r H
. (202/586-5742)
. Fuldne r (202/586-9852)
.

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

# Contents P. 7



### Pag e Executiv e Summar

y Methodolog y Result s 1
. Curren t Interes t i n Lif e Extensio n 2
. Th e Life-Extensio n Optio n Utility Life-Extensio n Consideration s Identifyin g Plant s for

Lif e Extensio n Performin g Lif

e Extensio n 3
. Methodolog y Developin g New-Plan t

Cost s Estimatin g Life-Extensio n Capital Cost s 4
. Life-Extensio n Analysi s Introductio n Capacity UsedT o Develo p Life-Extensio n Cost s Annual Profil e of

Capacity Usedt o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , 1990-201 0 Overnigh t

Capital Cost s o f

Lif e Extensio n Compariso n wit

hOthe r Studie s Limitation s of

thi s Methodolog y Summary Appendice s A
. Equatio n Relatin g Tota l Plan t Cost s t o Plan t

Siz e B
. Probability an dLevel-of-Effor t Factor s for

Coal- , Oil- , an dGas-Fire dPowe r Plant s C
. Th e Concept- 5 Mode l Introductio n Genera l Descriptio n o f

th e Concept- 5 Mode l D
. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s VII . 

### vii viii
5 5 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 8 2 1 24 25 2 5
29 33 37 37 37 4 3

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

# Table s P. 8

3 . 4 . 5
. 6
. 7
.

10
. 11
. 12
. 13
. Bl
. B2
. Cl
. Dl
. Nameplat e Capacit y b y Prim e Mover , Decembe r 198 6 Nameplat e Capacit y o f Fossil-Fue l Stea mPlant s Enterin g Service , Actua l an dPlanned , 1950-199 6 Cause s o f

Wea r o n Fossil-Fue l Stea mPlan t Equipmen t

an dComponent s Estimate dOvernigh t

Capita l Cost s an dAccoun t Ratio s fo r

Ne w 800-Megawat t

Fossil-Fue l Stea mPlants , b y Accoun t an dFue l Typ e Estimate dOvernigh t

New-Plan t

Cost s an dLife-Extensio n Cost s fo r a153-Megawat t

Coal

Fire dStea mPlan t

• Concept- 5 Regiona l Cos t Multipliers , b y NER C Region , Alaska , an dHawai i Nameplat e Capacit y Use dt o Develo p Life-Extensio nCosts , b y NER C Region , Alaska , an d Hawaii , 1990-201 0 Nameplat e Capacit y Use dt o Develo p Life-Extensio nCosts , 1990-201 0 Averag e Siz e o f

Generatin g Unit s Use dt o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , b y NER C Regio n an db y Fue l Typ e Rang e o f Estimate dOvernigh t

Capita l Cost s o f

Lif e Extension , b y Fue l Typ e Estimate dOvernigh t

Capita l Cost s o f

Lif e Extension , b y NER C Region , Alaska , an dHa

waii , an db y Fue l Typ e Averag e Estimate dDirec t Life-Extensio nCosts , b y Fue l Typ e an dAccoun t Averag e Estimate dLife-Extensio nCosts , b y Plan t Siz e an dFue l Typ e Probabilit y Factors , b y Accoun t an db y Fue l Typ e Level-of-Effor t

Factors , b y Accoun t

an db y Fue l Typ e Evolutio n o f

th e Concep t

Cod e Concept- 5 Subaccoun t

Categorie s Pag e

2 7 1 2 1 3 14 1 8 1 9 1 9 2 2 23 2 4 2 5 3 3 3 4 38 4 3 

# Illustration s Pag e 1
. Averag e Ag e o f

Fossil-Fue l Stea mUnits , 1970-200 0 3 2
. Force dOutag e Rat e o f Coal-Fire dStea mUnit s 4 3
. Nort hAmerica n Electri c Reliabilit y Counci l Regio n Ma p 1 6 4
. Numbe r

an dNameplat e Capacit y o f Coal-Fire dUnit s Use dt o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , b y Siz e 2 0 5
. Numbe r

an dNameplat e Capacit y o f Oil-Fire dUnit s Use dt o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , b y Siz e 2 0 6
. Numbe r

an dNameplat e Capacit y o f Gas-Fire dUnit s Use dt o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , b y Siz e 2 1 Al
. Relationshi p Betwee n Overnigh t Constructio nCost s an dUni t Siz e fo r Ne w Coal-Fire d Plant s 3 0 Cl
. Genera l Flo w o f Calculation s i n th e Concept- 5 Mode l 3 9

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP. 9



# Executiv e Summar

y

I n th e past , electri c utilitie s buil t ne w plant s t o mee t growt hi n th e deman dfo r electricit y o r

t o replac e old , inefficien t

plants
. Today , utilitie s ar e considerin g othe r option s fo r

meetin g futur e demand , suc ha s conserva tio n programs , loa dmanagement , purchas e o f nonutilit y generation , bul k powe r purchases , an d repowerin g an dlif

e extensio n (refurbishment ) o f exist

in g plants
. Al l o f

thes e option s wil l pla y arol e i n util

ities ' effort s t o mee t

th e deman dfo r

electricity
. Th e purpos e o f

thi s repor t

i s t o estimat e life-extensio ncap ita l cost s fo r

us e b y th e Energ y Informatio n Adminis

tratio n (EIA ) in it s forecastin g models
. A methodolog y i s develope dt o estimat e th e overnigh t capita l cost s o f lif e extensio n fo r

fossil-fue l stea mplant s an dt o estimat e averag e regiona l an dnationa l life-extensio n costs . Th e repor t discusse s th e reason s fo r th e curren t

interes t i n lif e extensio n an ddescribe s th e factor s tha t migh t in

fluenc e autility' s decisio n t o life-extend
. N o attemp t i s mad e t o compar e lif

e extensio n wit hothe r

option s fo r meetin g demand
. I n thi s study , lif

e extensio n refer s t o investment s mad e t o maintai n th e operatin g statu s of aplan t a t acceptabl e level s o f availability ' an defficienc y beyon dit s origi

nall y anticipate dretiremen t date
. Fo r

modelin g pur poses , refurbishmen t

i s assume dt o exten dth e lif e o f a plan t approximatel y 2 0 years , wit havailabilit y an def

ficiency declinin g ove r

time
. Mor e extensiv e activities , suc ha s repowerin g apulverize dcoa l plan t wit haflu

idize dbe dsyste mo r

modifyin g aboile r

t o us e othe r fuels , ar e no t

considere di n thi s report . Onl y fossil-fue l stea mplant s ar e include din thi s study
. Th e increasin g ag e o f

thes e plant s i s amajo r

facto r i n utilities ' curren t

interes t i n lif e extension
. Thes e plant s accounte dfo r

6 6 percen t

o f tota l U.S
. nameplat e ca pacit y i n 1986
. Betwee n 198 7 an d201 0 man y o f thes e plant s wil l reac hthei r

anticipate dretiremen t

date
. Th e averag e ag e (weighte db y capacity ) o f coal-fire dplant s wa s 9 year s i n 1970 , bu t i s expecte dt o increas e t o 3 6 year s b y 2010
. If

thes e plant s ar e retired , man y utilitie s wil l nee dalternativ e generatin g resources . an dcost s associate dwit hsit e selectio n an dth e permit

tin g proces s fo r

ne w plants
. Th e decisio n t o life-exten do r retir e olde r

plant s i s extemel y comple x an di s usuall y mad e a s par t of autil

ity' s long-rang e operatin g plans
. Normally , th e utilit y first examine s it s entir e syste mt o determin e ho w re furbishin g plant s compare s wit hothe r option s fo r

meet
in g demand
. I f

i t i s determine dtha t

plan t refurbishmen t i s th e least-cos t

metho do f

meetin g futur e demand , plant s ar e selecte dt o b e evaluated
. A t thi s point , ex tensiv e engineerin g studie s ar e undertake n t o determin e th e conditio no f

th e equipmen t

an dfacilitie s o f

thes e plants
. Refurbishmen t

options , alon g wit hthei r costs , ar e evaluate dt o determin e if eac hplant' s desire davail

abilit y an dperformanc e level s ca n b e reached
. Utilitie s ca n tak e variou s approache s t o th e implementatio n o f life-extensio nprograms . Man y utilitie s pla n t o us e a phase dapproac hfo r

lif e extension , refurbishin g thei r plant s durin g normall y schedule dmaintenanc e out
ages . However , som e utilitie s ma y follo w afront-en d approach , performin g al l life-extensio n wor k durin g a singl e prolonge doutage .



# Methodolog y
Th e methodolog y use di n thi s repor t wa s develope d t o estimat e th e overnigh t capita l cost s o f

lif e extensio n a t th e regiona l an dnationa l level s fo r us e i n EI A mod

els
. Currently , i f

autilit y wer e t o undertak e alife

extensio n program , i t

woul dspen dmillion s o f dollar s evaluatin g th e refurbishmen t o f plant s withi n thei r

sys tems . Thes e evaluation s involv e comple x economi c an dengineerin g studie s tha t weig hlif

e extensio n agains t othe r option s fo r

meetin g demand
. Th e cost
estimatin g methodolog y use di n thi s repor t wa s devel

ope dbecaus e i t

woul dno t

b e cost-effectiv e t o perfor m detaile dlife-extensio nanalyse s fo r eac hplan t

t o ge t estimate s o f

overnigh t

capita l cost s a t

th e regiona l an d nationa l levels
. Prolongin g th e live s o f olde r plant s i s a n attractiv e optio n sinc e i t

utilize s existin g capacit y an davoid s th e hig hcost s associate dwit hconstructin g ne w plants
. Extendin g th e live s o f

olde r plant s als o avoid s th e tim e Thi s stud y estimate s overnigh t capita l cost s o f

lif e ex tensio no f

individua l plant s fro mth e overnigh t capita l cost s o f typica l ne w fossil-fue l stea mplants
. New-plan t cost s ar e develope db y makin g adetaile dcos t analysi s

' A plant' s availability refers t o th e tim e tha tth e plantca n b e operate d t o mee telectricit y generatin g requirements . Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 0



## Tabl e ES1 . Rang e o

f Estimate d Overnigh t Capita l Costs o f Lif e Extensio n b y Plan t Typ e (198 7 Dollar s pe rKilowatt )

Coal-Fire d Oil-Fire d Plan t Typ e Capacit yWeighte d Average *
142 9 5 7 3 Individua l Plan t Cost s l Lowes t I Highes t 10 3 27 2 7 8 14 3 6 0 10 5 Thes e cost s represen t nationa l averages . Note : Thes e cost s ar e develope d usin g th e mid-level-of-effor t factors

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration

. Offic e o f Coal

. Nuclear

. Electri can d Alternat e Fuels

. Electri cPowe rOivision

.

o f individua l plan t

component s usin g th e Concept- 5 mode l designe db y Oa k Ridg e Nationa l Laboratory
. Th e cos t dat ain th e Concept- 5 mode l ar e designe dt o represen t th e actua l cost s o f

constructin g aplan t

o f a give n siz e an dtype . Thes e cost s d o no t includ e th e cost s o f rea l escalation , inflation , o r allowanc e fo r fund s use ddurin g constructio n (AFUDC)
. T o deriv e life-extensio n cost s fro mnew-plan t costs , thi s stud y consider s th e likelihoo dtha t aplant' s com ponent s wil l nee dt o b e refurbishe dafte r 2 5 year s o f service
. Th e resource s require dt o refurbis hth e com ponent s o f

aplant , an dregiona l difference s i nlabo r rate s an di n th e cost s o f material s an dsupplie s ar e als o considered
. Thus , beginnin g wit hnew-plan t costs , th e overnigh t

capita l cost s o f

extendin g th e lif

e o f apar ticula r plan t ar e estimate db y adjustin g th e cos t o f eac h componen t

b y th e likelihoo dtha t i t wil l nee dt o b e refurbished , th e amoun t o f resource s neede dt o refur

bis hit , an dth e locatio n o f th e plant
. 

# Result s
Usin g th e methodolog y described , th e averag e over nigh t capita l cost s o f

lif e extensio n ar e estimate dfo r us e i n EI A models
. Approximatel y 36 4 gigawatt s o f fossil-fue l stea mcapacit y ar e considere d(26 4 gigawatt s ar e coal-fired , 2 8 gigawatt s ar e oil-fired , an d7 3 gigawatt s ar e gas-fired)
. Bot hth e capacity-weighte d averag e cos t

fo r thes e plant s an dth e rang e (lowes t an d highest ) fo r

individua l coal- , oil- , an dgas-fire dplant s ar e give n i n Tabl e ESI
. Coal-fire dplants , fo r example , hav e a n averag e cos t

fo r refurbishmen t

o f $14 2 pe r kilowatt , whil e oil

- an dgas-fire dplant s hav e cost s o f $9 5 an d$73 , respectively
. Thes e cos t estimate s ar e base do n curren t

environmenta l law s an dregulations
. If mor e stringen t

standard s wer e impose do n existin g plants , the n cos t

estimate s fo r

lif e extensio n woul db e considerabl y highe r

tha n estimate dhere
. Life-extensio n cost s var y primaril y becaus e o f differ

ence s i n plan t

siz e an di n cost s o f

labo r an dmaterials
. Large r plant s ten dt o hav e lowe r refurbishmen t

cost s pe r

uni t o f capacit y if

othe r factor s ar e equal
. I n addi

tion , life-extensio ncost s fo r coal-fire dplant s als o var y accordin g t o whethe r

th e unit s ar e equippe dwit hflu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) units
. Lif e extensio n i s certai nt o b e applie dt o som e degre e a t som e agin g powe r

plants
. A s previousl y noted , th e choic e o f

lif e extensio nove r

othe r alternative s (suc h a s retirement , repowering , loa dmanagement , conser vation , purchase dpower , an dne w capacity ) wil l de

pen do n ahos t

o f factor s peculia r

t o eac hutilit y an d individua l plant
. Th e capita l cost s fo r lif e extensio n develope dinthi s repor t fo r us e inEI A model s ar e base do nth e assumptio n tha t th e expenditur e o f

th e estimate dcost s wil l retur n plant s t o thei r origina l avail

abilit y an doperatin g efficienc y an dexten dthei r oper atin g live s 2 0 years . Th e lac k o f dat ao n th e cos t

an d effectivenes s o f

actua l life-extensio nproject s doe s no t allo w validatio no f

thes e life-extensio n costs . There

fore , th e cos t

estimate s provide di nthi s repor t ar e in

sufficien t t o estimat e th e exten t o r degre e o f

life

extensio n effort

tha t wil l occu r

o r th e additiona l powe r generatio nsuc heffor t

wil l enable
. Fe w studie s hav e calculate dlife-extensio ncosts . A n Oa k Ridg e Nationa l Laborator y stud y title dCoal-Fired Electric Power

Plant Life Extension: An Overview esti

mate dlife-extensio n cost s rangin g fro m$4 3 t o $10 6 pe r kilowat t (198 7 dollars ) fo r

coal-fire dplants
. I n a n articl e prepare db y th e Electri c Powe r Researc hIn

stitut e (EPRI ) title d"Longe r Lif e fo r Fossil-Fue l Plants, " amuc hbroade r se t o f estimate s wa s developed , wit hlife-extensio n cost s rangin g fro m$12 5 t o $62 5 pe r kilowat t (198 7 dollars ) fo r

differen t

fossi l fuels
. Bot h o f thes e studie s ar e base do n dat afro malimite dnumbe r o f life-extensio nprojects
. Neithe r develop s amethod

olog y t o estimat e life-extensio n cost s o r attempt s t o estimat e averag e regiona l an dnationa l life-extensio n costs . Th e cost s estimate di nthi s EI A repor t fal l withi n th e cos t range s o f

actua l utilit y experienc e reporte db y thes e tw o studies
. I nth e future , lif

e extensio n ma y becom e acontinuou s process , wit hutilitie s designin g operatio n an dmainte

nanc e procedure s t o maintai n aplant' s performanc e an davailabilit y throughou t it s 50-to-60-yea r

life
.

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 1



# 1 . Curren t Interest i n Lif e Extensio n

Plannin g t o meet

futur e deman di s of

utmos t impor

tanc e t o electri c utilities
. Many option s for meetin g deman dexist
. Thi s repor t discusse s on e of

thes e op tions , th e lif

e extensio n (o r

refurbishment) o f

existin g fossil-fue l stea mplants
. Th e cost s presente din thi s re port ar e develope dprimaril y for us e i n forecastin g model s of

th e Energ y Informatio n Administratio n (EIA ) an dar e onl y on e componen t of th e informatio n neede dt o evaluat e variou s option s fo r meetin g de

mand
. Thi s report

(1 ) discusse s th e reason s for th e cur ren t interes t i n lif e extension , (2 ) describe s th e factor s that might influenc e autility' s decisio n t o life-extend , (3 ) develop s amethodolog y for estimatin g overnigh t capital cost s fo

r lif e extensio n o f

fossil-fue l stea mplants , an d(4 ) using th e methodolog y developed , calculate s averag e regional andnational life-extensio n cost s for inpu t int o EI A models
. Th e repor t doe s no t compar e lif e extensio n wit

hothe r option s fo

r meetin g th e de

mandfor electricity , includin g th e constructio n o f ne w plants
. Electri c utilitie s ar e alway s plannin g t o meet th e future deman dfor

electricity
. Althoug helectri c utilitie s cur rentl y hav e adequate capacity , many fossil-fue l steam plant s wil l reac hthei r

anticipate dretiremen t

date s b y 2010
. In 1986 fossil-fue

l steamplant s accounte dfor 6 6 percen t o f tota l capacity (Tabl e 1)
. If thes e plant s ar e retired , utilitie s ma

y hav e t o develo p additional source s of supply
. Traditionally , utilitie s buil t ne w plant s t o meet growt hi

n deman do r

t o replac e ol dplants
. In recen t years , however , utilitie s hav e been reluctan t t o buil dlarg e plant s becaus e o f substantial increase s in constructio n costs , stric t

environmenta l requirements , uncertaintie s i

n futur e demand , an duncertaintie s in re coverin g new-plan t costs . Curren t

utilit y plan s includ e fe w ne w plant s (Tabl e 2)
. I n lie u of buildin g ne w plants , utilitie s ar e explorin g othe r options , includin g conservationan dload-managemen t programs , pur chase s o f electricity fromothe r

utilitie s (bulk

power ) an dfromnonutilities , fromforeig n source s (imports) , an dfromrepowerin g an dlif e extensio nof

existin g plants
. Al l o f

thes e option s ar e expecte dt o play arol e i nmeetin g th e future deman dfor electricit y inth e Unite dStates
. Conservatio n an dloadmanagement program s involv e utilit y effort s t o decreas e o r

shif t th e deman do nthei r systems , thereb y lowerin g thei r pea k demand s an dre ducin g th e nee dfor

additional generatin g capacity
. B y encouragin g energ y efficienc y throug hconservation programs , th e utilit

y i s abl e t o reduc e th e growt ho f deman do n it s system . Unlike conservatio nprograms , loadmanagemen t

program s d o no t

decreas e tota l de

mand
. Loa dmanagemen t

refer s t o th e method s utilitie s us e t o shif

t deman dfrompea

k t o off-pea

k periods
. Sinc e pea k deman ddetermine s th e amoun t o f capacit y needed , lowerin g it

b y shiftin g some deman dt o othe r tim e period s reduce s th e nee dfor additional capacity
. Th e Potoma c Electri c Powe r Compan y estimate s tha t i t wil l b e abl e t o eliminate th e nee dfor 440 megawatt s of capacity b y th e mid-1990' s throug havariety o f con sumer programs . However , i

n some cases , conservatio n improvement s hav e no t

been adopte da s quickl y as,ex pected , an dconservationgain s ma y b e offse

t b y th e introductio n o f

ne w product s tha t

us e electricity , o r b y change s in energ y consumptio n patterns .



## Tabl e 1 . Nameplate Capacity b y Prim e Mover , Decembe r 1986 (Megawatts ) Prim e Move r Capacit y Percen t o f Tota l Capacit y Fossil-Fue l Stea m Coa l Oi l Ga s Nuclea rStea m Wate r Ga s Turbine/Interna l Combustio n . Other " 468,93 9 313,19 4 55,76 0 99,98 5 92,41 7 85.16 5 56,58 9 4,57 4 6 6 4 4 8 1 4 1 3 1 2 8 1 Total

. 707,68 4 10 0 Othe rinclude s th e followin g energ ysources : coal-oi l mix , geothermal

. refuse , sun . wast e heat , wind , an d wood

. Note : Total s ma yno t equa l su m o f component s becaus e o f independen t rounding

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration , Inventory of Power Plants in the United States 1986 (Augus t 1987)

. p . 9
. Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 2



## Tabl e 2 . Nameplate Capacit y o f Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plants Enterin g Service , Actua l an d Planned , 1950-199 6 (Megawatts )

Year s
Actua l 1950-195 5 1956-196 0 1961-196 5 1966-197 0 1971-197 5 1976-198 0 1981-198 5 Planne d 1986-199 0 1991-199 6 Coa l
29.61 7 28.77 8 26.00 2 48,84 2 64,91 0 59.28 9 46.88 1
12.16 7 15,95 0 Fue l Typ e Oi l
7.61 2 5.68 0 4.61 8 4.86 2 18,63 1 13.69 0 1,52 3
0 0 Ga s
12.75 8 15,13 4 19.48 6 23,86 5 23,35 4 3,33 7 3 5
0 0 Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration

. For m EIA-860 , "Annua l Electri cGenerato rReport, " Decembe r1987
.
Purchasin g powe r

fro mnonutilities , othe r domesti c utilitie s (bul k

powe r purchases) , an dforeig n source s (imports ) coul dals o reduc e autility' s nee dfo r addi

tiona l generatin g capacity
. Purchase s o f powe r fro m nonutilitie s provide dabou t 2 percen t

o f th e Nation' s tota l deman di n 1986. 2 Curren t forecast s cal l fo r

thi s percentag e t o remai n approximatel y th e sam e throug h 2000
. However , considerabl e uncertaint y surround s estimate s o f

th e developmen t

o f nonutilit y powe r sources . Bul k

powe r purchase s fro mbot hdomesti c an dforeig n utilitie s allo w autilit y wit hinadequat e o r expensiv e capacit y t o purchas e neede dpower . I n 1986 , import s o f

powe r fro mCanad aaccounte dfo r 2 percen t o f th e Nation' s tota l demand
. Increase dimport s o f elec

tricit y coul dhel p utilitie s i n som e U.S
. region s dela y requirement s fo r

additiona l generatin g capacity , mostl y i n region s nea r

Canadia n supplie s o f

electricity
. However , growt hi n domesti c Canadia n deman dcoul d potentiall y displac e U.S
. needs , o r Canadia ntrad e pol

icie s coul dshif

t fro mthei r

curren t practice s s o tha t thi s sourc e woul dn o longe r b e availabl e t o mee t

U.S
. demand
. Also , limit s o n th e carryin g capacit y o f trans
missio n system s an dth e eventua l lac k o f surplu s powe r fro mutilitie s ma y restric t th e growt ho f

foreig nan d domesti c bul k

powe r trade
. Repowerin g o r

extendin g th e live s o f

existin g powe r plant s ar e additiona l alternative s t o ne w plan t construc
tion
. Bot ho f

thes e processe s involv e refurbishin g olde r plant s t o exten dthei r

lives
. I n repowering , th e boile r a t aplan t i s replace dwit hane w combustio ntechnol

og y suc ha s a n atmospheri c fluidized-be duni t whic h result s i n bette r

performanc e and , usually , large r ca pacity
. I n lif

e extension , aplan t

i s restore dt o it s orig

ina l performanc e withou t installin g ne w combustio n technologies
. Al l o f thes e option s ar e expecte dt o pla y arol e i n meet
in g th e deman dfo r

electricit y i n th e future
. Thi s repor t wil l discus s on e o f thes e options--th e lif

e extensio n (o r refurbishment ) o f

fossil-fue l stea mplants
. I n thi s report , lif e extensio n refer s t o investment s mad e t o maintai n th e operatin g statu s o f aplan t a t acceptabl e level s o f efficienc y an davailabilit y beyon dit s originall y antic

ipate dretiremen t

date
. Fo r

modelin g purposes , refur

bishmen t i s assume dt o exten dth e lif e o f aplan t ap proximatel y 2 0 years , wit havailabilit y an defficienc y declinin g ove r

time
. Man y utilitie s ar e studyin g lif e extensio n a s apractica l an dcost-effectiv e mean s o f meetin g futur e demand
. On e majo r

benefi t o f lif e extensio n i s tha t

i t avoid s th e sitin g problem s associate dwit hnew-plan t construc
tion
. Normally , n o ne w permits , switchin g facilities , o r transmissio n line s ar e require dwhe nrefurbishin g existin g plants
. Also , a s explaine di n Chapte r 2 , whe n refurbishin g aplant , mos t utilitie s ma y b e abl e t o avoi d th e nee dfo r

som e expensiv e environmenta l control s tha t woul db e require do n ne w plants
. I n addition , th e overnigh t

capita l expenditure s fo r lif e extensio n ar e ofte nconsiderabl y les s tha nthos e require dt o buil da ne w plant
. A s aresult , lif e extensio n pose s fewe r

financia l risks an di s easie r

t o justif y t o publi c utilit y com missions
. Nuclea r o r hydroelectri c plant s coul db e considere d fo r lif e extension , bu t

thi s repor t

discusse s onl y th e refurbishmen t

o f fossil-fue l stea mplants
. Althoug h som e nuclea r

unit s wil l reac hthei r

anticipate dretire

men t date s b y 2010 , uncertaint y exist s concernin g th e feasibilit y an dcos t

o f extendin g thei r

lives
. Also , relicensin g guideline s fo r nuclea r plant s hav e no t

bee n issue db y th e Nuclea r

Regulator y Commission
. Hy

droelectri c plant s ar e no t considere di n thi s stud y be

caus e man y oLthe mfrequentl y operat e wel l beyon d 4 0 year s wit hrelativel y mino r overhaul s o f

thei r tur
bin e generators .

: Energ y Informatio n Administration , Annual Outlook

far U.S. Electric Power 1987. DOE/EIA-0474(87 ) (Washington , DC
. Ma y 1987)
. Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 3

A s state dpreviously , man y fossil-fue l stea mplant s wil l reac hth e en do f

thei r desig n live s b y 2010
. Th e in

creasin g ag e o f

thes e plant s i s amajo r facto r i n th e growin g interes t

i n lif e extension
. EI A collect s dat ao n th e statu s o f

electri c generatin g plant s an dassociate d equipmen t

i n commercia l servic e an dthos e schedule d t o b e i n commercia l servic e in th e Unite dState s an d Puert o Ric o withi n 1 0 year s o f filing th e report. 1 I t include s utilities ' plan s t o buil dne w plant s (unde r con structio n an dplanned ) an dretir e existin g ones . A t presen t fe w utilitie s hav e reporte dplan s t o retir e man y plants
. I n fact , som e utilities , suc ha s Duk e Power , hav e decide dno t

t o retir e an y currentl y operatin g ca pacit y i n thi s century. 4 Fo r thi s reason , plant s ar e no t retire dunles s autilit y ha s reporte daretiremen t date
. Whil e th e dat ahav e bee n completel y reporte donl y throug h1996 , th e dat asho w tha t th e averag e ag e (weighte db y capacity ) fo r coal- , oil- , an dgas-fire d stea mplant s wil l hav e risen fro m9 , 14 , an d9 years , respectivel y in 1970 , t o 27 , 29 , an d3 4 year s b y 200 0 (Figur e 1)
. Th e increasin g averag e ag e o f thes e plant s i s du e i n par t

t o lowe r

growt hin deman di nrecen t years , whic hcause dutilitie s t o slo w dow n o r curtai l constructio n program s tha t woul dhav e brough t

ne w fossil-fue l plant s o n line
. Man y o f thes e olde r

plant s wil l b e kep t

o n lin e an duse dt o mee t cyclin g demand
. A s Tabl e 2 shows , thi s slowdow nin ne w plan t con structio n i s expecte dt o continu e throug h1996
. Th e increasin g ag e o f

fossil-fue l plant s i s o f

concer nt o utilitie s becaus e olde r

plant s ten dt o hav e operationa l problems
. A s aplan t

approache s retirement , increase d maintenanc e i s required
. Dat acompile db y th e Nort h America nElectri c Reliabilit y Counci l (NERC ) sho w tha t coal-fire dplant s wit hacapacit y betwee n 5 0 an d 20 0 megawatt s begi nt o becom e les s reliabl e afte r 2 0 years . Afte r

3 0 years , th e force doutag e rat e accelerate s sharpl y (Figur e 2) , an dth e duratio no f outage s in

creases . A t

som e point , th e operatio n o f th e plan t

be

come s uneconomica l an dth e plan t ma y b e retired
. Historically , plant s tha t reache dretiremen t

ag e wer e considere dobsolet e a s th e resul t o f advance s i n tech

nology
. However , b y th e 1950's , th e technolog y o f powe r generatio nha dreache daplateau ; consequently , man y plant s nearin g "retiremen t age " inth e 1990' s wil l no t b e technologicall y obsolete
. Recently , utilitie s hav e reporte dplan s t o retir e onl y asmal l percentag e o f thei r existin g capacity
. Thi s indicate s tha t utilitie s pla nt o operat e thei r

olde r plant s longe r

tha n originall y planned
. I t

i s likel y tha t

man y o f thes e olde r

plant s wil l b e considere dfo r

life-extensio nprograms .



### Figur e 1 . Averag e Ag e o f Fossil-Fue l Stea m Units , 1970-200 0 5 0

C D O ) <Unitars)

C O C D > < 

### 4 0 3 0 'A) 1 0



### 1970 198 0 199 0 200 0
Source : Energ y Informatio n Administration , For m EIA-860,"Annua l Electri c Generato r Report '

Decembe r 31 , 1988 . — -

'Energ y Infonnatio n Administration , Form EIA-860 , "Annua l Electri cGenerato rReport. " 4 Electric Light

and Power, "Powe rPlantLif e Extensio n Economics , Plan s Explore d a tAmerica n Powe rConference " (Jun e 1984 ) pp . 27 , 30 .
Enera vInformatio n Administration/Estlmatin o th e Capita l Costs o fLif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 4



## Figur e 2 . Force d Outag e Rate o f .Coal-Fire d Stea m Units

c C D O ^ C D 0 . C D C D D C C D O ) C O 3 

## o T J C D o


### c D 2 0 Uni t Ag e (Years ) Source : Genera l Electri c Company , H.G . Stoll , "Th e Economic s o f Powe r Plan t Upgrading ,

Ma y 22 . 1984 .

4 Enera vInformatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 5



# 2 . Th e Life-Extensio n Optio n

Extendin g th e lif

e o f powe r plant s i s arelativel y ne w optio n for

electri c utilities
. Previously , a s plant s ap proache dth e en dof

thei r useful lives , the y wer e re tired , an dnew , more economical plant s wer e brough t o n lin e t o replac e them
. In recen t years , many utilitie s hav e com e t o vie w olde r

plant s tha t

ma y b e econom ically refurbishe da s importan t asset s i n thei r overal l plannin g approac hfo

r meetin g futur

e deman dfor

elec

tricity
. utilit y withlittl e growt hin demand , ampl e reserv e margin , an dacces s t o inexpensiv e purchase dpowe r i s no t likel y t o begi nalife-extensio n programan dwoul d probabl y choos e t o derat e o r eve n decommissio nsome of it s olde r plants
. O n th e othe r

hand , autilit

y havin g astead y growt hin demand , an dwithmany plant s near in g retirement , ma

y conside r

lif e extensio nfavorably
. B y keepin g plant s o n lin e beyon dthei r original retire

ment dates , autilit

y ma y b e abl e t o meet

it s deman d withou t buildin g ne w plants
. 

# Utility Life-Extensio n Consideration s Environmenta l Requirement s
When considerin g lif

e extension , autilit

y first examine s it s entir e systemt o determin e ho w refurbishin g plant s woul dcompar e wit

hothe r option s for

meetin g demand
. Some of

th e factor s autility consider s whe n makin g decision s abou t

lif e extensio n are :

• Age , condition , an doperatin g characteristic s o f al l it s plant s

• Curren t an dplanne dcapacity an dprojecte dde

mand

• Curren t an dprojecte dreserve margin s

• Curren t andplanne dmix of

plant types , togethe r withexpecte dloadcharacteristic s

• Financial conditio n

• Projecte dcost s for

fossil fuel s usedwithi n th e system

• Geographi c locatio n o f it s plant s

• Curren t an dprojecte davailabilit y of powe r for purchas e o r

fo r sal e b y th e utilit

y

• Cos t o f lif e extensio n

• Cost s of

othe r availabl e option s

• Regulatory impact
. Environmenta l consideration s als o affect life-extensio n planning
. Powe r

plant s ar e subjec t

t o many environ

mental law s an dregulations
. Utilitie s contemplatin g life-extensio n program s revie w thes e law s an dregula

tion s t o determin e ho w the y affect th e decisio n t o re furbish
. Before alife-extensio n projec t i s undertaken , autility evaluate s th e cost s an dbenefit s of th e project , includin g environmenta l controls
. Th e principa l environmenta l control s that affect life

extensio n decision s ar e Federa l an dStat e law s tha t contro l ai r

an dwate r

quality an dsoli dwaste . Th e Fed

eral air-quality regulation s ar e th e Ne w Sourc e Perfor

manc e Standard s (NSPS) , th e Revise dNe w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (RNSPS) , an dth e Preventio n of Significant

Deterioratio n (PSD ) rules
. Stat e air

quality regulation s includ e requirement s fo r construc
tio nan doperatin g permit s an dpollutio n contro l stat
ute s tha t enforc e Stat e Implementatio n Plans
. I nth e are ao f wate r quality , utilitie s mus t

evaluat e thei r

life

extensio n plan s agains t

th e requirement s of

th e Clean Wate r Act 5 

### an dStat e permit s an dapproval s for th e constructio n o f

wastewate r

treatmen t

systems . Inad

dition , utilitie s ar e subjec t t o th e Resourc e Conserva

tio n an dRecover y Ac t

an dnumerou s othe r

environ

mental law s an dregulation s that ca n affect life

extensio n programs . Th e decision s abou t

life-extensio n investment

vary , dependin g o n individual circumstances
. Fo r example , a NSP S an dRNSP S hav e special importanc e inlife

extensio ndecisionrbecaus e the y impos e emissio nstan
T o discharg e an y substanc e int o surfac e waters , plant s mus tobtai n apermi tfrom th e Nationa l Pollutan tDischarg e Eliminatio n Syste m (NPDES ) progra m administere d b y th e State s and th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Th e NPDE S program i s mandate d b y th e Federa l Clea n Wate rAc t(Publi cLa w 92-500 . Sec . 402) .

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs o fLif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 6

dard s o n generatin g unit s base do n whe n constructio n began
. Thes e standard s limi t th e emission s o f

sulfu r dioxid e ( SOi) , nitroge n oxide s ( NOx), an dparticulat e matte r fro mpowe r

plants
. Pre-NSP S unit s (thos e o n whic hconstructio n bega n befor e Augus t 18 , 1971 ) ar e subjec t onl y t o Stat e Implementatio n Plans , whic har e generall y les s stringen t

tha n NSPS
. NSP S unit s (thos e o n whic hconstructio n bega n afte r Augus t 17 , 1971 , bu t befor e Septembe r

19 , 1978 ) mus t

no t emi t mor e tha n 1.2 pound s o f

SOipe r millio n Bt u o f

hea t input
. RNSP S unit s (thos e o n whic hconstructio n bega n afte r Septembe r

18 , 1978 ) mus t

als o mee t

thi s limit
. I n ad

dition , however , RNSP S unit s tha t emi t betwee n0. 6 an d1.2 pound s pe r

millio n Bt u mus t

reduc e thei r

SOi emission s b y 9 0 percent . RNSP S unit s tha t emi t les s tha n 0. 6 pound s pe r

millio n Btu mus t

reduc e thei r

SCh emission s b y 7 0 percent . I n effect , th e revise dstandard s requir e th e us e o f

flu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) equip

men t t o reduc e SQiemissions
.
Man y o f th e plant s tha t

wil l b e considere dfo r refur

bishmen t in th e nea r

futur e wil l b e pre-NSP S plants
. I f utilitie s ca n preserv e th e pre-NSP S statu s o f thes e plants , the y wil l b e abl e t o avoi dth e capita l an doper atio n an dmaintenanc e cost s o f FG D equipmen t

(scrub

bers)
. Althoug hRNSP S appl y t o ne w units , the y als o appl y t o unit s whe n refurbishmen t make s the m"new, " "modified, " o r

"reconstructed " facilitie s b y RNSP S criteria
. I n general , i t

appear s tha t

pre-NSP S an dNSP S unit s wil l no t

b e subjec t

t o RNSP S afte r

refurbishmen t unles s th e capita l cost s o f refurbishin g th e boile r

excee d 5 0 percen t

o f th e cost s o f

ane w boile r

unit , an di t

i s technologicall y an deconomicall y feasibl e fo r th e uni t t o mee t th e RNSPS
. A t

present , i t

i s no t clea r wha t kin do f refurbishmen t

activitie s wil l mak e apre-NSP S o r NSP S plan t

subjec t t o RNSPS
. 

# Identifyin g Plant s fo r Life Extensio n Inspection of the reheat

inlet pendant tubes at

Duke Power's Allen Steam Station.

Onc e aplan t

ha s been , selected , th e utilit y conduct s engineerin g studie s tha t evaluat e th e conditio n an dre mainin g lif

e o f al l plan t

equipmen t

an dcomponents . Refurbishmen t

options , alon g wit hthei r costs , ar e eval

uate dt o determin e if

th e plant' s desire davailabilit y an dperformanc e level s ca nb e achieved
. Th e utilit y the n determine s ho w bes t t o addres s th e wea r

tha t ha s occurre do n th e plant' s components . If th e remainin g lif e o f aplan t componen t

i s expecte dt o b e les s tha n th e propose dperio dfo r lif e extension , th e utilit y coul d choos e t o repair , modify , o r replac e it
. Onc e autilit y ha s determine dtha t extendin g th e live s o f olde r plant s i s th e mos t

economica l metho do f

meet
in g futur e demand , i t

identifie s plant s fo r

furthe r study
. Whil e som e plant s ma y fit int o autility' s pla n fo r

meet
in g futur e demand , other s ma y not . Fo r example , if

a utility' s deman dprojection s poin t t o anee dfo r

onl y additiona l cyclin g capacity, 6 th e utilit y i s unlikel y t o exten dth e lif

e of abaseloa dplan t

tha t wa s no t designe d fo r th e additiona l stresse s o f cyclin g duty
. I f

autilit y expect s hig hoi l an dga s prices , i t i s likel y t o conside r extendin g th e live s o f

it s coal-fire dplant s befor e it s oil

o r gas-fire dplants
. If

, however , autilit y anticipate s tha t environmenta l regulation s ar e ap t t o becom e stricter , it

woul dten dt o favo r

lif e extensio n fo r

oil

- o r gas-fire dplant s ove r

coal-fire dplants
. A typica l powe r plan t i s designe dt o hav e alif e o f approximatel y 4 0 years . Th e averag e ag e o f fossil-stea m plant s retire db y utilitie s throug h198 7 i s jus t unde r 4 0 years . Mos t

o f th e plant s tha t

hav e bee n retire dar e ver y small , averagin g 2 6 megawatts . Large r plant s migh t b e expecte dt o operat e longer
. Eve n afte r 4 0 years , no t

al l plan t equipmen t

o r component s ar e wor n out . Som e facilitie s hav e amuc hlonge r life , includin g buildin g structures , foundations , etc . Equipmen t o r component s subjec t

t o corrosion , friction , heat , an d pressur e wea r

mor e rapidly , an da t

differin g rates . I n general , ther e ar e fou r

differen t type s o f

wear : creep , fatigue , erosion7"an dcorrosion
. Eac hpiec e o f plan t equipmen t

ma y experienc e on e o r mor e o f thes e mech

anisms , al l o f

whic har e time-dependent , s o tha t th e
"Cyclin g plant s ar e designe dt o star t an dsto p o r

increas e an ddecreas e thei r outpu t severa l time s ada y t o mee t variabl e demand
.

*.%•{**. « A*•!--

. -.»i«n/c<?tirr.*«in n «H o Canifa l f*o«t< s o f I if * Firtpnsio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 7



## Tabl e 3 . Causes o

f Wea r o n Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plan t Equipmen t an d Components Typ e o f Wea r Cause s Plan t Equipmen t Component s Affecte d Cree p
Fatigu e

Erosio n Corrosio n Hig h stea m temperatur e and/o rpressur e
Thermall yinduce d stress , periodi cstea m forces , electrica l force s Hard-particl e and/o rflyas h erosion , cavitatio n Wate ran d stea m impurities , coal-as h constituents , aci d depositio n Superheate ran d reheate rtubes , outle t headers , turbin e forging s an d shells , mai n stea m lines , valves , boltin g . Turbin e blade s an d shaft , boile rheaders , drum s an d tubes , pum p an d ta n components , generato rwindin g support s Turbin e blade s an d nozzles , boile rtubes , ta n blades , pump s Boile rtubes , turbin e blades , discs , precipitators , scrubber s stacks , ai rpreheater s
Source : Electri cPowe rResearc h Institute , Proceedings: Fossil Plant Life Extension

Conference

and Workshop

CS-420 7 Researc h Projec t 1862-3 ; worksho p hel d June 12-15 , 1984 , i n Washington , DC

. Prepare d b yBechte l Powe rCorporatio n (Sa n Francisco , California , Augus t 1985) , pp . 1-2
.


### conditio n worsen s withage . Tabl e 3 give s example s of ho w thes e type s o

f wear affect fossil-fue l stea mplants
. A plant' s availability decline s a s it s component s ag e an dwear out ; ever-increasin g maintenanc e i s require d t o keep th e plant' s availabilit y a t accettrbl e levels
. Availability begin s t o declin e rapidl y a s aplant' s ag e approache s it s desig n life
. I f th e utilit y use s a n "en

hance dmaintenanc e program, " whic hbegin s with commercia l operation , th e plant' s availabilit y can b e maintaine dbeyon dit s normal operatin g lif e o f 4 0 years . A utility wil l choos e th e leve l of life-extension invest

men t necessary t o maintai n th e plant' s availability at th e desire dlevel
. stea msuppl y system , th e stea mgeneratin g an ddraf

t system , th e fuel-handlin g system , th e FG D syste m(i f present) , an dinstrument s an dcontrols
. 

# Performin g Lif

e Extensio n
After autility ha s analyze dan dselecte dplant s t o b e refurbished , it

design s it s life-extensio n program . Th e tw o mos t commo n approache s take n b y utilitie s ar e often calle dth e "front-en dapproach " an dth e "phase d approach." 8 

### A utility usuall y divide s th e plan t equipment

tha t may nee dt o b e refurbishe dint o tw o categories
. Th e first category include s equipment tha t can b e repaire do r replace dwithlittl e downtime , i s lo w i n cost , an dca n b e ordere dquickly
. Deterioratio n of suc hequipmen t can often b e handle dby increasin g th e frequenc y o f planne dmaintenanc e outages . In thi s categor y ar e boile r waterwalls , superheate r an dreheate r

tubes , feedwate r heate r an dcondense r

tubing , precipitato r components , fa

n bearing s an dfa

n blades , pulverize r journal s an dshaf

t seals , turbin e blade s an dblad e seals , an dsupport

blockin g fo

r generato r stato r windings. 7 

### Th e secon dcategory include s equipment that require s major ne w components . Extende doutages , lon g order

in g leadtimes , an dgenerall y hig hcapital cos t ar e asso ciate dwiththes e replacements
. Thi s category include s suc hitem s a s turbin e roto r forgings , turbin e casings , boile r drum s an dheaders , generato r armatur e insula

tio n an dassociate drewinding , collecto r rings, main stea mlines , an dboiler

feedpump
. Th e equipment mos t likely t o requir e refurbishment include s th e fossil-fue

l 

## Front-En d Approac h
Th e front-en dapproac hi s usedb y utilitie s t o rehabil

itat e plant s jus t

prio r t o th e en do f

thei r desig nlives
. Usin g thi s approach , amajor portio no f

th e life

extensio n work

i s performe ddurin g asingl e planne d outag e o f several month s o r

more . Thi s strateg y may b e appropriat e in situation s where :

• A plan t can b e easily take n ou t

o f servic e becaus e sufficien t capacity i s availabl e

• A plant' s availability ha s fallen belo w acceptabl e level s

• Planne dfue

l conversio n require s suc hextensiv e modification s tha t

lif e extensio n canb e econom icall y performe dat

th e same tim e

• Th e plant's-capacity mus t b e uprated
.

'Electri c Powe rResearc h Institute . Proceedings: Fossil Plant Life Extension Conference and Workshop, EPR I CS-4207 , prepare d b y Bechte l Powe rCorp . (Sa n Francisco , California . Augus t1985) , pp . 1-12 . "Fo rfurthe rinformation , se e Electri c Powe rResearc h Institut e (EPRI) , Proceedings: Fossil Plant Life Extension Conference and Workshop.
Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 8

Refurbishment

work at CincinnatiGas & Electric's Beckjord plant.

Cincinnat i Ga s & Electric' s (CG&E ) recen t refurbish

men t o f it s Beckjor dPlant' s Uni t 3 i s a nexampl e o f th e front-en dapproac ht o lif e extension
. Thi s 125-megawatt , coal-fire duni t wa s on e o f

thre e olde r unit s bein g use dt o mee t summe r an dwinte r

pea k de

mand
. Th e uni t

wa s i n relativel y goo dconditio n ye t stoo didl e eac hsprin g an dfall. 9 an di s no w refurbishin g Uni t 1 fo r approximatel y $19 8 pe r kilowatt
. 

## Phase d Approac h

CG& Eextende dth e lif e o f Uni t 3 becaus e refurbish

men t cost s compare dfavorabl y wit hth e estimate dcos t o f buildin g ne w capacity
. CG& Edi dno t wan t t o re plac e th e agin g uni t

wit hane w uni t

becaus e growt h in deman dwa s smal l an dexpecte dt o remai n s o fo r th e immediat e future
.
Life-extensio n studie s wer e performe do nth e uni t i n 1984
. A tota l o f

4 9 hardwar e replacement s o r majo r modification s wer e recommende da t a n estimate dcos t o f $1 3 million , o r

approximatel y $10 0 pe r kilowatt
. Th e wor k

o n al l 4 9 o f

th e recommendation s wa s con ducte ddurin g a13-wee k outag e i n lat e 1986 , a t a n actua l cos t

o f abou t $12 1 pe r

kilowatt
. Th e uni t

i s no w expecte dt o operat e a t

a n acceptabl e leve l o f

availabil

it y fo r anothe r 2 5 years . Afte r

th e successfu l refurbish

men t o f Uni t 3 , CG& Ecomplete dasimila r life

extensio n projec t

o n Uni t 2 fo r abou t $18 0 pe r kilowat t I nth e phase dapproach , lif e extensio n i s don e ove r time , durin g norma l maintenanc e outages . Thi s ap proac hi s th e on e chose nmos t ofte n becaus e th e utilit y ca npla n it s life-extensio n effort t o minimiz e outag e tim e an dkee p th e plan t i nservice
. Also , sinc e th e life

extensio nwor k

i s don e ove r

severa l years , th e utilit y doe s no t nee dt o hav e larg e cas hreserve s o nhand
. Pennsylvani aPowe r

an dLigh t

(PP&L ) i s a nexampl e o f autilit y tha t

ha s pursue dth e phase dapproac ht o lif e extension
. Fo r

nearl y 1 0 years , PP& Lha s system
aticall y studie dit s agin g capacity
. Th e utility' s curren t budge t include s $ 2 millio nannuall y fo r ongoin g life

assessmen t

inspections
. I t

ha s budgete d$14 0 millio n fo r boile r rebuilding , t o b e phased-i n ove r th e nex t 5 years , t o exten doperatin g live s an dimprov e availabil

it y o n1 4 fossil-fue l unit s totalin g 5,30 0 megawatts. 1 0

"Rober tSmock . "Powe rPlan tOwner s 'Phas e In ' Lif e Extension, " Power

Engineering (Februar y 1987) , pp . 20-21 . "'RobertSmock , "Competitio n Raise s Valu e o f Lif e Extension , Agin g Plan tUpgrading, " PowerEngineering (Februar y 1988) , pp . 26-27 .
Enera vInformatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o fLif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.1 9



### Potoma c Electri c Powe r

Compan y (PEPCO ) i s con ductin g apilo t

projec t at it s Potoma c River

station , whic hha s five unit s totalin g 51 4 megawatts . PEPC O ha s budgete d$8 8 millio n ($17 1 per kilowatt ) t o b e spen t at th e statio n ove r

a10-yea r period
. Th e objectiv e of th e programi s t o exten dplan t lif e several decade s an ddefer constructio n o f

ne w capacity
. Plan s for

re furbishin g Uni t

1 wer e mad e i

n 198 1 wit

hrefurbish

ment work schedule dt o b e don e durin g th e plant' s normal annual outages . T o date , $2. 5 millio n ha s been expende dfo

r th e Unit 1 project. " PEPC O estimate s i t wil l cos t betwee n $15 0 t o $200 per kilowatt t o re furbis hothe r

plants
. Refurbishment

work improve d th e availability of

Uni t 1 from86-8 9 percen t

t o 95-97 percent . Regardles s of

th e approac hchosen , all life-extende d plant s requir e periodi c assessment of th e remainin g lif

e o

f thei r equipmen t

an dcomponents, a s wel l a s on-goin g maintenanc e an doperatin g procedures
. Frequently , a s apart o f th e life-extensio n work , utilitie s ad dadditional diagnosti c equipmen t

t o aplan t

t o monito r

it s perfor

manc e closely
. B y identifyin g an dcorrectin g problem s before the y becom e serious , autilit y canavoi dun planne doutage s an dmaintai n th e plant' s availability
. Th e approac ht o lif

e extensio n ma

y chang e inth e fu

ture . T o date , mos t

life-extensio n project s hav e been directe dtowar dpowe r

plant s nearin g retirement ; life

extensio n techniques , however , can als o b e applie dt o ne w plant s enterin g commercia l service
. I t ma y b e pos sibl e t o operat e plant s for 5 0 t o 6 0 year s throug hen hance dmaintenanc e procedures
. Thes e procedure s ma y includ e mor e frequent

o r detaile dinspection s an d additiona l schedule doutage s for componen t

repairs
.

'Rober tSmock , "Competitio n Raise s Valu e o f Lif e Extension , Agin g Plan tUpgrading, " pp . 27-28 . Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.2 0



# 3 . Methodolog y

Thi s chapte r

describe s th e methodolog y use dt o esti

mat e th e overnigh t

capita l cost s o f

lif e extensio n o f fossil-fue l stea mplant s a t th e regiona l an dnationa l lev

els
. Cost s derive dfro mthi s methodolog y wer e devel

ope dfo r inpu t int o th e forecastin g model s o f th e En

erg y Informatio n Administratio n (EIA)
. Currently , if autilit y wer e t o undertak e alife-extensio n program , i t woul dspen dmillion s o f dollar s evaluatin g th e refur

bishmen t o f plant s withi n thei r

systems . Thes e evalu

ation s involv e comple x economi c an dengineerin g stud

ie s tha t weig hlif

e extensio n agains t

othe r option s fo r meetin g demand
. Th e cost-estimatin g methodolog y use din thi s repor t

wa s develope dbecaus e i t woul dno t b e cost-effectiv e t o perfor mdetaile dlife-extensio n analyse s fo r

eac hplan t

t o ge t estimate s o f

overnigh t capita l cost s a t

th e regiona l an dnationa l levels
. Life-extensio n cost s wer e base do n new-plan t cost s fo r severa l reasons . First , cos t infonnatio n fo r

actua l life

extensio n project s i s relativel y scarce . I n recen t years , onl y afe w utilitie s hav e move dpas t th e plannin g an d evaluatio n stage s o f

lif e extensio n an dactuall y initiate d refurbishmen t

projects
. Second , utilitie s tha t hav e ini

tiate dlife-extensio n program s ofte n regar dcos t infor

matio n a s proprietary
. Third , whe n life-extensio n cost s ar e reported , th e accountin g method s use dar e no t con sistent ; som e utilitie s conside r th e cost s expenses , other s capitaliz e them
. Lastly , th e cost s o f life-extensio n project s ar e site-specifi c an dofte n no t applicabl e t o othe r generatin g plants
. Th e refurbishmen t

cost s develope dher e represen t th e cost s o f returnin g aplan t

t o it s origina l operatin g con ditio n an dextendin g it s lif e approximatel y 2 0 years . Th e availabilit y an defficienc y o f th e refurbishe dplant s ar e assume dt o degrad e ove r th e 20-yea r

period
. I t

i s assume dtha t

plan t refurbishmen t

wor k wil l b e phase d i n ove r 5 years , betwee n aplant' s 25t han d30t hyear s o f operation
. Whil e som e utilitie s ma y choos e t o up grad e o r repowe r thei r plant s an dother s ma y choos e les s extensiv e lif

e extension , th e cost s o f thes e option s ar e no t presented
. Th e chang e i n operatin g an dmain

tenanc e (O&M ) cost s associate dwit hrefurbishe dplant s i s als o no t

estimate di n thi s report . 

# Developin g New-Plan t Cost s
Th e life-extensio ncost s develope di nthi s repor t wer e derive dfro mth e cost s o f ne w plants
. T o determin e th e cost s o f

typica l ne w fossil-fue l stea mplants , amode l calle dConcept- 5 wa s use d(Appendi x C)
. Concept- 5 i s acompute r

mode l develope db y th e Engineerin g Technolog y Divisio no f th e Oa k Ridg e Nationa l Lab

orator y fo r

estimatin g th e capita l cost s o f nuclea r an d fossil-fue l plants
. Th e mode l estimate s th e cos t o f build

in g ne w plant s b y estimatin g th e cost s o f individua l plan t components . Cos t

dat ai n th e mode l ar e base do n th e actua l cost s o f

powe r plan t equipmen t

an dfacilitie s a s determine db y Unite dEngineer s an dConstructors , Inc
. fro mvendo r

bids
. Unite dEngineer s an dConstruc

tor s i s a nengineerin g firmwit hmor e tha n 2 0 year s o f experienc e i n estimatin g powe r plan t cost s an dinvest

ments . Cos t dat ai nth e mode l ar e organize dint o 1 1 majo r accounts . Withi n eac hmajo r accoun t

ar e 2 0 t o 3 0 subaccount s (Appendi x D)
. Eac hsubaccoun t i s furthe r divide dint o factor y equipmen t costs , sit e labo r

costs , an dsit e materia l costs . T o develo p th e cos t o f ane w plant , Concept- 5 estimate s equipment , labor , an dma teria l cost s fo r

eac hsubaccoun t

of aplant
. Thes e cost s ar e the naggregate dt o deriv e tota l plan t costs . Con

cept- 5 account s use di nth e mode l t o identif y an dcat
egoriz e cost s fo r

plan t facilitie s an dmajo r

piece s o f plan t equipmen t

ar e show ni nTabl e 4
. A hypothetica l 800-megawat t plan t i nChicag o wa s chose na s th e typica l coal-fire dplan t o n whic ht o bas e refurbishmen t

costs . Th e hypothetica l plan t ha s a subcritica l stea msyste man dwa s designe db y Unite d Engineer s t o bur n3-percen t sulfur , bituminou s coal
. Th e estimate dcos t

o f thi s ne w plan t

i s $89 6 (i n198 7 dollars ) pe r

kilowat t (Tabl e 4)
. Thi s cos t

i s a n "over

night " constructio n cost , whic hdoe s no t includ e th e cost s o f inflation , rea l pric e escalation , contingencies , o r allowanc e fo r

fund s use ddurin g constructio n (AFUDC). 1 2 Concept- 5 estimate s th e cost s o f buildin g ne w plant s tha t

us e typica l coal- , oil- , an dgas-fire d generatin g technologies
. Thi s repor t assume s tha t

th e Concept- 5 cost s o f

buildin g atypica l plan t approximat e th e cos t o f buildin g aparticula r

plant
.

; AFUD C represents th e estimate d interes tcost s o f deb tand retur

n o n equity o f

fund s use d t o financ e construction .
Enera vInformatio n Administration/Estimatin a th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.2 1



## Tabl e 4 . Estimate d Overnigh t Capita l Cost s an d Accoun t Ratio s fo r Ne w 800-Megawatt Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plants , b y Accoun t an d Fue l Typ e

Concept- 5 Accoun t Fue l Typ e Coa l 198 7 dollar s pe rk W Rati o Oi l 196 7 dollar s pe rk W Rati o Ga s 198 7 dollar s pe rk W Rati o 20 1 Lan d an d lan d right s 21 1 Yardwor k 21 2 Steam-generato rbuildin g 21 3 Turbine , heater , contro l buildin g 21 8 ACoal-handlin g structure s • 21 8 B Miscellaneou s buildings " 21 9 Stac k

structur e 22 0 Fossil-stea m suppl ysyste m 22 1 Steam-generatin g syste m 22 2 Drat t syste m 22 3 Ash - an d dust-handlin g syste m 22 4 Fuel-handlin g syste m 22 5 FG D structur e 22 6 FG D equipmen t 22 7 Instrumentatio n & control s 22 8 Boiler-plan t miscellaneou s item s 23 1 Turbin e generato r 23 3 Condensin g syste m 23 4 Feed-heatin g syste m 23 5 Othe rturbine-plan t equipmen t 23 6 Proces s control s 23 7 Turbine-plan t miscellaneou s item s 24 1 Switchgea r 24 2 Statio n servic e equipmen t 24 3 Switchboard s 24 4 Protectiv e equipmen t 24 5 Electrica l structure s 24 6 Powe ran d contro l wirin g 25 1 Transportatio n an d lif t equipmen t 25 2 Air , water , an d stea m system s 25 3 Communication s equipmen t 25 4 Furnishings , fixtures

. & la b equipment..

. 25 5 Wastewate rtreatmen t equipmen t 26 1 Make-u p wate rstructure s & equipmen t 26 2 Hea t rejectio n syste m Tota l direc t cos t Tota l indirec t cos t Tota l plan t cos t 7.1 0 13.7 1 29.8 9 19.3 0 11.6 2 5.0 9 9.4 5 120.9 6 3.5 3 32.8 8 10.3 5 31.3 8 8.2 1 87.5 7 9.0 4 4.3 8 89.5 5 13.6 2 19.1 7 25.3 9 0.2 4 4.1 6 11.3 4 8.1 8 1.4 1 4.1 8 16.6 9 13.5 0 3.2 7 15.1 4 1.6 6 1.6 1 9.1 2 3.7 3 29.8 7 676.2 9 219.0 9 895.9 8 0.007 9

0.015 3 0.033 4 0.021 5 0.013 0 0.005 7 0.010 6 0.135 0 0.003 9 0.036 7 0.011 5 0.035 0 0.009 2 0.097 7 0.010 1 0.004 9 0.099 9 0.015 2 0.021 4 0.028 3 0.000 3 0.004 6 0.012 7 0.009 1 0.001 6 0.004 7 0.018 6 0.015 1 0.003 6 0.016 9 0.002 6 0.001 8 0.010 2 0.004 2 0.033 3 N A N A N A 7.1 0

6.7 7 58.5 4 18.8 3 0 5.0 3 10.1 4 81.1 3 4.4 3 20.5 0 1.1 0 47.5 1 8.2 0 62.1 6 9.0 0 4.5 8 89.4 5 18.9 7 19.6 8 25.6 9 0.2 4 4.1 2 4.2 1 13.9 2 1.4 1 4.1 7 7.8 6 11.6 8 3.2 6 15.1 3 2.0 7 1.1 0 8.4 4 3.6 8 29.8 1 609.8 8 227.7 2 837.6 1 0.008 5

0.008 1 0.069 9 0.022 5 0 0.006 0 0.012 1 0.096 9 0.005 3 0.024 5 0.001 3 0.056 7 0.009 8 0.074 2 0.010 7 0.005 5 0.106 8 0.022 7 0.023 5 0.030 7 0.000 3 0.004 9 0.005 0 0.016 6 0.001 7 0.005 0 0.009 4 0.013 9 0.003 9 0.018 1 0.002 5 0.001 3 0.010 1 0.004 4 0.035 6 N A N A N A 3.5 5

5.0 4 58.7 0 12.5 9 0 2.5 3 6.7 8 40.7 2 4.45 0 0 11.9 2 0 0 9.0 3 4.5 9 89.8 5 19.0 6 19.7 7 25.8 0 0.1 2 4.1 3 4.2 1 6.9 7 .7 1 2.1 0 5.2 5 11.7 0 1.2 9 15.1 4 2.0 7 0.7 4 5.6 4 2.4 6 29.9 6 406.8 7 143.1 4 550.0 1 0.006 5

0.009 2 0.106 7 0.022 9 0 0.004 6 0.012 3 0.074 0 0.008 1 0 0 0.021 7 0 0 0.016 4 0.008 4 0.163 4 0.034 6 0.035 9 0.046 9 0.000 2 0.007 5 0.007 7 0.012 7 0.001 3 0.003 8 0.009 5 0.021 3 0.002 3 0.027 5 0.003 8 0.001 3 0.010 2 0.004 5 0.054 5 N A N A N A

a Thi s classificatio n include s Concept- 5 subaccount s 218L , 218M , 218N , 2180 , 218P , 218Q , 218R , 218T , 218 W (Appendi xC)

. 0 Thi s classificatio n include s Concept- 5 subaccount s 218B , 2181 , 218U , 218 V (Appendi xC)

. FG D = Flu e ga s desulfurization

. Notes : »A n accoun t cos t o f zer o indicate s th e accoun t doe s no t appl yt o th e plan t type
. »l n th e actua l calculation , th e ratio s ar e carrie d ou t t o 6 digits

. sTotal s ma yno t equa l su m o f component s becaus e o f independen t rounding

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration , Concept- 5 dat a base , a s update d b yPE I Associates , Inc

. i n Regional Capital, Operating

andMaintenance Cost Estimate

for Emission

Control Equipment

Required

for New Fossil Steam Power Plants unde rcontrac t t o th e U.S

. Departmen t o f Energ y(Cin
cinnati , Ohio

. Novembe r1985)

.


### Th e cost s for

ne w 800-megawat

t gas - an doil-fire d plant s ar e als o obtaine dfromConcept-5
. Th e cos t of ane w oil-fire dplan t

i s $83 8 pe r

kilowatt in 198 7 dollars , o r 0.94 of th e cos t for th e coal-fire dplant , whil e th e cos t of ane w gas-fire dplan t

i s $55 0 pe r

kilowatt , o r 0.6 1 of th e cos t for th e coal-fire dplan t

(Tabl e 4)
. Onc e th e cost s of

buildin g typica l 800-megawat t plant s ar e developed , tota l plan t cost s for candidat e plant s of an y siz e ar e estimate dusin g an equatio n develope dby PE I Associates , Inc. 1 3 

### Th e equatio n wa s derive dfrom work don e b y Bashamb u an dYate s of th e Tennesse e Valle y Authorit y an dquote dprice s of stea mboilers. u 

### Thi s equation , whic hrelate s tota l plan t cost s t o plan t size , wa s derive db y PE I Associates , Inc. , b y fitting a curv e t o cost-to-siz e dat acollecte db y th e Tennesse e Valle y Authority
. Th e equatio n i s give n i nAppendi x A
. After th e tota l cos t

of aplan t i s estimated , it

i s disaggregate dint o plan t

accoun t costs , using accoun t ratio s derivedTro mth e cost s o f a n 800-megawat

t plant
.

U PE I Associates , Inc. , "CER s for Lif e Extensio n Cost s fo

r Fossil Fuel-Fire dElectri c Utilit y Plants, " (Washington , DC , November 1987)
. 14Bashambu , Ra

mL. , andRalp hL
. Yates , Tennesse e Valley Authority , "Whic hi s Cheaper ? A Smal l o r aLarg e Unit, " 1985Transactions of the American Association of Cost Engineers (Morgantown , West Virginia , America

n Associatio n of

Cos t Engineers , 1985)
.
12 Energ y Infonnatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.2 2



### Ratio s ar e calculate dfo

r eac haccoun t

by dividin g ac coun t cost s by total plant

costs . Fo r

example , th e cos t fo r yardwor k fo r th e 800-megawat

t coal-fire dplant

is $13.7 1 per

kilowatt
. Dividin g thi s figur e by th e total plant cos t of $895.9 8 per

kilowat t (Tabl e 4 ) give s th e rati o of yardwork

cost s t o total costs , 0.0153
. Th e ac coun t ratio s fo r typical 800-megawat

t coal- , oil- , an d gas-fire dplant s ar e als o show n i n Tabl e 4
. If , for example , it

i s desire dt o calculat e accoun t cost s fo r ane w 153-megawat

t coal-fire dplant , th e tota l cos t o f th e plan t i s calculate dfro

mth e cost-to-siz e equation
. Thi s cos t i s the n disaggregate dint o accoun t cost s usin g accoun t ratios
. Ne w plant

costs , b y account , for

a 153-megawat

t coal-fire dplant

ar e show n i

n Tabl e 5
. T o calculat e accoun t

cost s for othe r plant types , asim

ila r procedur e woul db e followed
. 

# Estimatin g Life-Extensio n Capita l Cost s
Usin g th e metho ddescribe di n thi s chapter , overnigh t new-plan t capital cost s wer e estimate dfor individual fossil-fue l steamplant s availabl e for refurbishment
. Tw o factor s ar e develope dfor eac hplan t

accoun t that conver t thes e new-plan t

cost s int o life-extensio n costs . Th e first facto r i s th e probability o f

refurbishin g a give n plan t

component. A s note din Chapte r 2 , th e component s o f

apowe r plan t wear at different rates . Some components , suc ha s buildin g foundations , las t for alon g time , whil e other s wear muc hmore quickly
. Th e probability factors , whic hvary fro m0 t o 1 , quan tif y difference s i

n wear i n aplan t an dexpres s th e like

lihoo dthat

agive n componen t

will nee dt o b e refur



## Tabl e 5 . Estimate d Overnigh t New-Plan t Cost s an d Life-Extensio n Cost s fo r

a 153-Megawat

t Coal-Fire d Stea m Plan t Concept- 5 Accoun t New-Plan t Cos t (198 7 dollar s pe rkW ) Probabilit y

Facto r Level-of Effort Facto r Regiona l

Multiplier * Life-Extensio n

Cos t (198 7 dollar s pe rkW ) 20 1 Lan d an d lan d right s 21 1 Yardwor k 21 2 Steam-generato rbuildin g 21 3 Turbine , heater , contro l buildin g 21 8 ACoal-handling structure s " 21 8 B Miscellaneou s buildings c 21 9 Stac k

stmctur e 22 0 Fossil-stea m suppl ysyste m 22 1 Steam-generatin g syste m 22 2 Draf t syste m 22 3 Ash - an d dust-handlin g syste m 22 4 Fuel-handlin g syste m 22 5 FG D structur e 22 6 FG D equipmen t 22 7 Instrumentatio n & control s 22 8 Boiler-plan t miscellaneou s item s 23 1 Turbin e generato r 23 3 Condensin g syste m 23 4 Feed-heatin g syste m 23 5 Othe rturbine-plan t equipmen t 23 6 Proces s control s 23 7 Turbine-plan t miscellaneou s item s 24 1 Switchgea r 24 2 Statio n servic e equipmen t 24 3 Switchboard s 24 4 Protectiv e equipmen t 24 5 Electrica l structure s 24 6 Powe ran d contro l wirin g 25 1 Transportatio n an d lif t equipmen t 25 2 Air , water , an d stea m system s 25 3 Communication s equipmen t 25 4 Furnishings , fixtures , & la b equipment..

. 25 5 Wastewate rtreatmen t equipmen t 26 1 Make-u p wate rstructure s Aequipmen t 26 2 Hea t rejectio n syste m Tota l direc t cos t Tota l indirec t cos t Tota l plan t cos t 11.0 1 21.2 7 46.3 8 29.9 5 18.0 2 7.8 9 14.6 7 187.7 0 5.4 8 51.0 1 16.0 6 48.7 0 12.7 4 135.8 9 14.0 3 6.7 9 138.9 5 21.1 3 29.7 4 39.3 9 0.3 8 6.4 5 17.6 0 12.6 9 2.1 9 6.4 8 25.8 9 20.9 4 5.0 7 23.5 0 3.5 7 2.5 0 14.1 5 5.7 9 46.3 5 1,050.3 7 339.9 7 1390.3 4 0

0.0 1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.2 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.9 0 0.1 5 1.0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.9 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 5 0.1 5 0

0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 6 0.0 2 0.1 0 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.2 0 0.3 3 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 7 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 4 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.9 9

0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 9 0

* 0.0 9 0.0 6 0.1 1 0.0 2 0.1 5 61.3 2 1.7 9 16.6 6 0.6 4 15.9 1 5.0 5 53.8 1 4.1 3 0.1 0 45.4 0 0.4 2 0.5 9 0.5 9 0.0 1 0.1 0 4.7 0 0.1 3 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.3 1 0.2 5 0.0 2 0.4 7 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.1 4 0.0 9 0.6 9 213.8 3 34.6 1 248.4 4

* Note : Thi s plan t i s locate d i n th e ECA R Regio n o f th e Nort h America n Electri cReliabilit yCouncil

. _ _ 0 Thi s classificatio n include s Concept- 5 subaccount s 218L , 218M , 218N , 2180 , 218P , 218Q , 218R , 218T , 218 W (Appendi xC)

. c Thi s classificatio n include s Concept- 5 subaccount s 218B , 2181
. 218U

. 218 V (Appendi xC)

. FG D = Flu e ga s desulfurization

. ' Les s tha n S.0 1 pe rkilowatt

. Note : Total s ma yno t equa l su m o f component s becaus e o f independen t rounding

. Sources : ^Regiona l Multipliers : Energ yInformatio n Administration , Concept- 5 dat a base

. ^Probabilit yan d Level-of-Effor t Factors : PE I Associates , "CER s fo rLif e Extensio n Cost s fo rFossi l Fuel-Fire d Electri cUtilit yPlants, " (Washington , DC , Novembe r1987)

. ©Othe rData : Calculate d b yEnerg yInfor matio n Administration

. Offic e o f Coal , Nuclear , Electri can d Alternat e Fuels , Electri cPowe rDivision

.

Energ y Informatio n Administration/ Estimatin a th e Caoita l Cost s n f I if p P«toncin n fo rPnccii.Co i c»oo. ~ oi- ,P.2 3



## Tabl e 6 . Concept- 5 Regiona l Cost Multipliers , b y NER C Region , Alaska , an d Hawai i

Regio n Multiplie r ECAR .. . ERCO T MAAC.. . MAI N... . MAP P .. . NPC C .. . SER C .. . SP P WSC C

. . Alask a . . Hawai i

. . 0.9 9 0.9 4 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.9 4 1.02 0.9 3 0.9 7 1.04 1.0 0 1.04 Note : NER C = Nort h America n Electri cReliabilit yCouncil

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration , Concept- 5 dat a base

.
bishe dafte r

2 5 year s o f

service
. Probabilit y factor s wer e develope dfro mth e knowledg e an dexperienc e o f cos t engineer s familia r

wit hplan t

operation s an d refurbishmen t

projects
. Th e secon dfacto r

i s th e leve l o f

effor t require dt o refurbis haplan t

component . Engineerin g judgmen t an dexperienc e an dinfonnatio n fro mboile r manufac

turer s wer e use dt o develo p level-of-effor t factors
. The y represen t

th e percentag e o f

equipmen t

tha t mus t b e refurbishe dand/o r

th e labor , materials , an dsupplie s neede dt o accomplis hth e refurbishment
. Whil e som e component s ca n b e easil y restore dwit hlittl e expense , other s requir e larg e expenditure s o f tim e an dmone y t o refurbish
. Level-of-effor t factor s var y amon g th e account s t o allo w fo r

thes e variation s i n expenditures
. Sinc e th e amoun t

o f resource s require dt o refurbis h th e component s o f

particula r

plant s varies , low , mid , an dhig hlevel-of-effor t

factor s ar e develope dfo r eac h accoun t cost . Mid-rang e level-of-effor t factor s ar e use d t o estimat e th e amoun t

o f resource s neede dt o refurbis h th e component s o f

atypica l plant
. Hig han dlo w level

of-effort factor s estimat e th e amount s expende di nre furbishmen t

project s tha tar e mor e o r les s costl y tha n thos e fo r atypica l plant
. Ther e i s considerabl e uncer taint y abou t

th e conditio n o f

th e component s o f

par ticula r plants
. Hig hlevel-of-effor t factor s ma y bette r estimat e th e cost s o f

refurbishin g th e component s of a plan t i n poo r condition , suc ha s on e whic hha s under

gon e th e stres s o f

frequen t startup s an dshutdown s as sociate dwit hcycling
. O n th e othe r hand , lo w level

of-effort facto r ma y bette r

estimat e th e cost s o f

refur

bishin g th e component s o f aplan t tha t ha s bee nuse d infrequentl y an dmaintaine di n relativel y goo dcondi

tion
. Probabilit y an dmid-rang e level-of-effor t factor s fo r coal-fire dplant s ar e show n i n Tabl e 5 ; probabilit y an d low , mid , an dhig hlevel-of-effor t factor s fo r

al l plan t type s ar e give n i n Appendi x B
. Component s wit ha hig hprobabilit y o f refurbishmen t

ar e th e fossil-fue l stea msuppl y system , stea mgeneratin g system , draf t system , fuel-handlin g systems , an dflu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) syste m(i f present) , instrument s an dcontrols , turbin e generator , an dswitchgear
. Mos t othe r component s hav e alo w probabilit y factor
. Th e highes t level s o f

effort coincid e wit harea s o f hig h probability
. Component s o f aplan t wit hth e highes t probabilit y o f

refurbishmen t

ar e thos e subjec t

t o th e mos t wear . Thes e component s ar e usuall y expensive , an drefurbishin g the mrequire s th e highes t leve l o f ef

fort
. Regiona l cos t

multiplier s fo r

selecte dcitie s i n th e Con

cept- 5 mode l wer e use dt o accoun t fo r regiona l differ

ence s i nlife-extensio n costs . Thes e multiplier s wer e develope dfo r

Nort hAmerica n Electri c Reliabilit y Counci l (NERC ) region s (Figur e 4 ) fro mactua l dat a fo r labo r rate s an dcost s fo r

material s an dsupplie s fo r citie s withi nth e NER C regions
. Thes e multiplier s ar e show ni nTabl e 6
. T o calculat e th e direc t cost s o f

lif e extensio n fo r

a plan t o f aspecifi c siz e an dtype , th e accoun t cost s o f ane w plan t

ar e multiplie db y probabilit y factors , level

of-effor t factors , an dregiona l cos t multipliers
. Fo r

ex ample , fo r

a153-megawat t

coal-fire dplant , th e life

extensio n cos t

fo r th e fossil-fue l stea msuppl y syste m i s $61.3 2 pe r

kilowat t

(Tabl e 5)
. I n thi s case , th e 153-megawat t

plan t unde r consideratio n ha s aFG D uni t an dth e cost s o f

refurbishin g thi s uni t

ar e include d i n th e tota l refurbishmen t cost s fo r

th e plant
. If

aFG D uni t wer e no t

present , probabilit y an dlevel-of-effor t factor s fo r

FG D structure s an dequipmen t woul db e zero. 1 5 Th e tota l direc t cos t fo r refurbishmen t

i s th e su mo f eac hplan t

account ; fo r

th e 153-megawat t

coal

firedplant , tota l direc t

cost s woul db e $213.8 3 pe r ki

lowatt , a s show n i n Tabl e 5
. Indirec t cost s includ e engineering , supervision , an d constructio n expenses ; contractors ' fees ; an dcontin

l5 PE I Associates , Inc. , "CER s fo rLif e Extensio

n Cost s fo rFossi l Fuel-Fire

d ElectricUtilit

y Plants. '

1 4 Enera vInformatio n Administration/Estlmatin o th e Caoita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.2 4



### genc y andstart-u p costs . Typically , indirec t costs , a s apercentag e o

f direc t costs , ar e muc hlowe r

fo r refur

bishment tha n the y ar e for

ne w construction
. In refur

bishment projects , th e desig n o

f existin g equipment

i s known , ther e i s les s uncertainty in th e projec t an dre furbishmen

t ca n b e schedule dat

autility' s convenienc e durin g planne dshutdowns , using in-hous e labor
. Also , several cos t

account s normall y include di n th e indirec t cost s fo r anew plant , suc ha s temporary constructio n facilities , andfieldoffic e expenses , ar e no t likely t o b e significant expense s durin g refurbishment work
. Based o n thes e factor s an ddiscussion s withutility engineers , th e rati o o

f indirec t t o direc t cost s fo r lif e extensio n i s assumedt o be one-hal f th e rati o fo

r new-plant

costs . Th e ratio s o f

indirec t t o direc t cost s for refurbishe d coal- , oil- , an dgas-fire dplant s of an y siz e ar e 0.1618 , 0.1867 , an d0.1759 , respectively
. Th e total indirec t

cos t of lif e extensio ni s calculate d b y multiplyin g th e total direc t cos t b y th e appropriat e ratio
. Fo r th e 153-megawat

t plan t show ninTabl e 5 , th e cos t i s $34.6 1 pe r

kilowatt
. Th e su

mof direc t and indirec t cost s i s th e total cos t

o f refurbishment ; for

th e 153-megawat

t coal-fire dplan t

th e tota l refurbishment cos t i s $248.44 per

kilowatt
.

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 1 5

## Figur

e 3 . Nort h America n Electri c Reliabilit y Counci l Regio n Ma p P.2 5



## ERCO T Regiona l Electri c Reliabilit y Counci l Area s ECAR—East Centra l Are a Reliabilit y Coordinatio n Agreemen t MAIN—Mid-America n Interpoo l Networ k MAAC—Mid-Atlanti c Are a Counci l MAPP—Mid-Continen t Are a Powe r Poo l NPCC—Northeast Powe r Coordinatin g Counci l SERC—Southeaster n Electri c Reliabilit y Counci l SPP—Southwest Powe r Poo l ERCOT—Electri c Reliabilit y Counci l o

f Texa s WSCC—Wester n System s Coordinatin g Counci l

Note : Thi s analysi s present s result s fo r North-.American Reliabilit y Counci l (NERC ) region s withi n th e contiguou s Unite d States, Alask a an d Hawaii . Sem e NER C region s als o includ e portion s o f Canad a an d Mexico .

16 Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.2 6



# 4 . Life-Extensio n Analysi s
Introductio n
Thi s chapte r

provide s estimate s o f

th e averag e over nigh t capita l cost s o f

lif e extensio n a t

th e NER C Re

gio n an dnationa l levels
. Determinin g whethe r t o ex ten dth e lif

e o f aparticula r

plan t i s aver y comple x decision , mad e o n a n individua l basi s sinc e i t involve s extensiv e informatio n specifi c t o eac hutilit y syste m an dplan t

site
. I n thi s chapter , aprofil e o f fossil-fue l stea mcapacit y i s establishe ds o tha t nationa l an dre giona l overnigh t

cost s o f lif e extensio n ca n b e estimate d usin g th e methodolog y describe din Chapte r 3
. Life

extensio n cost s wer e first calculate dfo r

individua l plants , an dthes e cost s wer e aggregate dint o regiona l an dnationa l total s fo r

us e i n ElA' s forecastin g models
. Th e first sectio n o f

thi s chapte r

describe s th e plant s fo r whic hlife-extensio n cost s ar e estimated
. Th e dis

tributio n o f

th e capacit y b y fue l type , region , year , an d plan t siz e i s discussed
. Thi s discussio n i s include dt o illustrat e th e magnitud e o f th e rol e lif

e extensio n coul d pla y i n utilities ' futur e plans
. Th e actua l rol e tha t lif e extensio n wil l pla y i s highl y uncertain , an dthu s th e actua l amoun t

o f capacit y tha t

wil l b e life-extende di s no t estimated
. Th e secon dsectio n present s estimate s o f averag e overnigh t

capita l cost s o f

lif e extensio na t th e NER C Regio n an dnationa l level
. Factor s tha t af

fec t life-extensio n costs , suc ha s aplant' s fue l type , size , an dlocation , ar e als o discussed
. thre e assumption s wer e mad e t o exclud e thes e plant s fro mconsideration
. First , onl y plant s buil t sinc e 195 7 wer e include dbecaus e i t i s no t normall y cost-effectiv e t o refurbis hplant s buil t earlier
. Plant s buil t

befor e 1957 , whic har e alread y ove r 3 0 year s old , emplo y generatin g technologie s tha t ar e les s advance dan dles s efficien t tha ntechnologie s use di nplant s buil t i n late r years . Second , onl y plant s wit hnameplat e capacitie s o f 10 0 megawatt s o r

greate r ar e include dbecaus e econ omie s o f scal e favo r

th e refurbishmen t

o f large r gen eratin g units
. O nadollar-per-kilowat t basis , larg e plant s ar e mor e attractiv e t o refurbis htha n smal l plants
. Usin g th e methodolog y describe din Chapte r 3 , th e overnigh t

capita l cos t

o f life-extendin g a50-megawat t coal-fire dplan t

withou t FG D woul db e $24 5 pe r kilo

watt . Fo r

asimila r

400-megawat t

plant , i t

woul db e muc hless , onl y $14 1 pe r kilowatt
. I n addition , man y smal l fossil-fue l stea mplant s ar e ver y old
. I n fact , mor e tha n 6 0 percen t

o f the mar e exclude db y th e first as sumptio n becaus e the y wer e buil t befor e 1957
. Third , oil

- an dgas-fire dplant s ar e include donl y i n region s wher e oil

- an dgas-fire dgeneratio n accoun t fo r mor e tha n 1 0 percen t

o f tota l generation
. Becaus e o f th e hig h cos t o f oi l an dga s relativ e t o coal , region s tha t d o no t depen dheavil y o noil

- an dgas-fire dgeneratio n ar e no t likel y t o conside r

refurbishin g thei r

oil

- an dgas-fire d capacity
. Whil e i t

i s possibl e tha t

plant s exclude db y thes e assumption s ma y b e refurbished , i nmos t case s thes e plant s ar e no t

expecte dt o b e life-extende dan d includin g the mcoul dske w th e estimate s o f averag e overnigh t

cost s presente dhere
. 

# Capacity Use d T o Develo p Life-Extensio n Cost s
Th e plant s i n th e profil e includ e mos t o f th e fossil-fue l stea mplant s reporte do n For mEIA-860 , "Annua l Electri c Generato r

Report." 1 6 Sinc e th e objectiv e o f thi s repor t

i s t o estimat e regiona l an dnationa l averag e overnigh t

capita l cost s o f

lif e extensio n fo r

inpu t t o EI A models , plant s tha t hav e alo w probabilit y o f be

in g life-extende dwer e no t considered
. Th e followin g Plant s tha t satisf y thes e assumption s compris e a nin

ventor y o f

plant s availabl e fo r

lif e extension
. Thi s in

ventor y include s approximatel y 36 4 gigawatt s o f fossil

fue l stea mcapacit y tha t satisf y th e criteri adescribed
. Thi s amount s t o nearl y 7 8 percen t o f th e fossil-fue l capacit y i n 1986, " an d5 0 percen t o f th e tota l U.S
. capacit y expecte dt o b e neede di n2000. 1 8 O f th e 36 4 gigawatts , 26 4 gigawatts , o r 7 2 percent , ar e coal-fire dplants
. I n 198 6 ther e wer e 31 3 gigawatt s o f coal-fire dcapacit y i nth e Unite dStates
. Thus , almos t 8 4 percen t

o f th e coal-fire dcapacit y existin g i n198 6 i s use dt o develo p averag e life-extensio ncost s i nthi s
"•Energ y Informatio n Administration , Inventory of PowerPlants in the United States 1986, DOE/EIA-O095(86 ) (Washington , DC , Augus t 1987) , Tabl e 20 . "Energ y Informatio n Administration . Inventory of PowerPlants in the United States 1986. DOE/EIA-O095(86 ) (Washington . DC , Augus t 1987) , p . 10 . '"Energ y Informatio n Administration , Annual Energy Outlook 1987.. DOE/EIA-0383(87 ) (Washington , DC . Marc h 1988) , p . 37 . Energ y Informatio n Administration / Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 1 7P.2 7



### study
. Oil-fire dplant s accoun t fo r 2 8 gigawatts , o r

8 percent , o f th e total inventory o f

plant s use dt o develo p life-extensio n costs . Thes e 2 8 gigawatt s represen t half of th e oil-fire dcapacity o n lin e i n 1986
. Gas-fire dplant s accoun t for th e remainin g 20 percen t of th e inventory , o r nearl y 7 3 gigawatts
. Thi s capacity represent s ap proximatel y 7 5 percen t

o f th e gas-fire dplant s o n lin e i n 1986
. Th e distributio n of

capacity i

n th e inventory i s no t unifor macros s NER C Regions
. Th e ECA Ran dSER C Region s hav e th e mos t

capacity in th e inventory
. Eac h regio n ha s approximatel y 7 2 gigawatt s o f capacity i

n th e inventory , o r

7 3 an d5 3 percen t

o f thei r respectiv e tota l capacitie s i

n 1986
. Al l State s in th e ECA RRegio n hav e larg e amount s o f

coal-fire dcapacity tha t

coul d b e considere dfor

lif e extension
. Th e same i s tru e in th e SER C Region , excep t for Florida , whic hha s a substantial amoun t

o f bot hoil

- an dgas-fire dcapacity tha t hav e life-extensio n potentia l a s well
. Th e SPP , WSCC , an dERCO T Regions , with49 , 45 , an d4 0 gigawatt s of

availabl e capacity , respectively , als o hav e many plant s tha t

coul db e considere dfor

lif e extension
. Al l State s in th e SP PRegio n hav e larg e amount s of availabl e capacity , whil e mos t o f th e availabl e capacity in th e WSC C Regio n i s in Californi aan dArizona
. Th e capacity i

n th e inventory i s als o no t equall y dis

tribute damon g th e region s b y fue l type . Th e ECA R an dSER C Region s accoun t for mos t o f th e availabl e coal-fire dcapacity , 7 2 gigawatt s an d5 9 gigawatts , re spectively
. Thes e tw o region s wer e th e tw o larges t in term s of coal-fire dcapacity in plac e in 1986 , wit hth e ECA RRegio n havin g 8 9 gigawatt s an dth e SER C Re

gio n havin g 7 3 gigawatts
. Al l State s in bothregion s consum e larg e amount s o f coa l t o generat e power . Th e WSCC , SPP , an dMAI N Region s als o hav e mor e than 2 5 gigawatt s o f

coal-fire dcapacit y i n th e inventory
. Th e NPC C an dSER C Region s togethe r accoun t fo r 8 6 percen t

of th e oil-fire dcapacity i

n th e inventory (1 6 an d8 gigawatts , respectively). In th e NPC C Region , ove r 5 0 percen t

of th e oil-fire dcapacity i s i nNe w York , whil e i

n th e SER C Regio n it

i s all i nFlorida
. Bot hState s rel y o n oil-fire dstea mgeneration
. Th e majority of

th e gas-fire dcapacity availabl e for lif e extensio n by 201 0 i s i

nth e ERCOT , SPP , an dWSC C Regions , whic hhav e 27 , 21 , an d1 6 gigawatts , respec tively
. Utilitie s i

nTexas , locate dprimaril y inth e ERCO T Region , ar e th e larges t ga s user s inth e coun try , followe dby utilitie s i nCaliforni ai

nth e WSC C Regio nan dLouisian ainth e SP PRegion
. 

# Annua l Profil e of Capacity Use d t o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , 1990-201 0
In thi s study , th e amoun t of capacity adde dt o th e in

ventor y eac hyear

depend s o n ho w many o f th e fossil

fueledsteamplant s meetin g th e criteri adescribe dwer e brough t o n lin e 25 year s earlier
. Becaus e o f th e larg e constructio n program s in th e early-to-mi d1970's , th e greates t numbe r o f plant s ar e adde dt o th e inventor y betwee n 1996 an d1999
. Th e pea k year wil l b e 1998 , whe n mor e than 20 gigawatt s of capacity ar e adde d (Tabl e 8)
. Th e annua l capacity adde dt o th e inventory decline s substantiall y after 2000 , withjus t

ove r 6 gigawatt s adde di n 2010
. Larg e amount s o f

coal-fire dcapacity ar e adde dt o th e inventor y betwee n199

4 an d2006
. Th e pea

k year oc cur s in 200 5 whe nnearl y 1 7 gigawatt s ar e added
. How



## Tabl e 7 . Nameplate Capacity Use d t o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs ,

b y NER C Region,Alaska , an d Hawaii , 1990-201 0 (Megawatts ) Regio n Fue l Typ e Coa l Ga s Oi l Tota l ECA R ... . ERCOT . MAA C .. . MAI N MAP P ... . NPC C ... . SER C ... . SP P WSC C .. . Alask a .. . Hawai i .. . Tota l 72,08 8 13,17 1 17,13 4 25,64 3 18,18 4 4,07 9 59,13 6 27,05 0 27,12 2 0 0 0

26,76 8 1,23 0 0 0 3,49 4 4,46 3 20,91 5 15,83 0 0 0 0 0 69 6 0 0 15,80 2 8.24 4 1.09 9 1,74 9 0 27 0 72.08 8

39.94 0 19,06 0 25,64 3 18,18 4 23,37 5 71,84 3 49,06 4 44,70 0 0 27 0 263,60 8 72.70 0 27,85 9 364,16 7 NERC=Nort h America n Electri c Reliabilit y Council . Note : Thes e dat a includ e 69,52 8 megawatt s (41,98 1 megawatt s coal-fired , 4,60 1 megawatt s oil-fired , an d 22,94 5 megawatt s gas-fired ) o f ca pacit y tha t becom e eligibl e fo r life extensio n prio r t o 1990 . Source : Energ y Informatio n Administration , For m EIA-860 , "Annua l Electri c Generato r Report, " Decembe r 1986 .
18 Energy Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs of Life Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant sP.2 8



## tabl e 8 . Nameplate Capacit y Used t o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , 1990-201 0 (Megawatts )

Year * Fue l Typ e Coa l Ga s Oi l Tota l
1990 . 199 1 . 1992 . 1993 . 199 4 . 1995 . 1996. 199 7 . 199 8 . 1999 . 2000 . 200 1 . 2002 . 200 3 . 2004 . 2005 . 200 6
. 200 7
. 200 8
. 2009
. 201 0
. Total " 5.19 3 4,51 7 7,65 0 9,65 7 13,91 7 10,78 3 13.97 5 14,23 0 13,98 8 11,23 5 11,27 6 9,75 5 12.38 8 11,73 4 9.08 6 16,71 4 12,31 9 9.87 6 6.49 7 10,44 5 6,39 3 3,37 3 4,93 1 4,59 5 4,98 7 1.88 9 5,52 7 5.20 2 2.97 7 5,53 9 4,15 6 3,63 5 1,73 7 1,10 2 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.14 1 29 8 98 5 93 0 93 8 0 71 2 2.67 1 85 1 3,62 0 1,89 6 2,33 8 2,07 3 1,53 4 50 7 1.90 0 86 3 0 0 0 0 9,70 7 9,74 6 13.23 0 15,57 3 16,74 3 16,31 0 19,88 9 19,87 7 20,37 9 19,01 1 16,80 7
' 13,83 0 15.56 3 13.37 3 9,59 3 18.61 4 13,18 2 9.87 6 6.49 7 10.44 5 6.39 3 263,60 8 72.70 0 27.85 9 364.16 7

* Th e value s show n indicat e th e amoun t o f capacit yreachin g 2 5 year s o f ag e eac h year . b Thes e total s includ e 69,52 8 megawatt s o f capacit ytha t becom e eligibl e fo rlif e extensio n prio rt o 1990
. O f thi s total , 41,98 1 megawatt s i s coal-fired

. 22.94 5 i s gas-fired , an d 4,601 megawatt s i s oil-fired

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration , For m EIA-860 , "Annua l Electri cGenerato rReport, " Decembe r1986
.



### ever , b y 201 0 onl y 6 gigawatt s of coal-fire dcapacity ar e added
. Th e annual distributio n o f oil

- an dgas-fire dcapacity adde dt o th e inventory varie s fromtha t o f coal-fire d capacity
. Th e larges t

amoun t of oil

- an dgas-fire dca pacity addition s occurre ddurin g th e mid-1970' s before droppin g of

f sharply
. Th e passag e of

th e Powerplan t an dIndustrial Fue l Us e Ac t (FUA ) i n 197 8 effectively prohibite dth e buildin g o f ne w oil

- an dgas-firedstea m plants
. Thus , th e amount

of oil-fire dcapacity adde dt o th e inventory eac hyear

peak s in 1999 a

t almos t 4 gigawatts
. Th e pea

k year s for

th e gas-firedcapacity ar e 199 5 an d1998 , whe nalmos t

6 gigawatt s ar e added
. Gas

- an doil-fire daddition s t o th e inventory declin e t o zer o after 200 3 an d2006 , respectively
. Th e coal

- an doil-fire dunit s i n th e inventory averag e abou t 40 0 megawatt s in size
. Th e gas-firedunit s ar e a littl e smaller , averagin g jus t ove r 30 0 megawatts . Th e distributio nof

unit s in th e inventory b y siz e an dplan t typ e i s show n in Figure s 5 , 6 , an d7
. Acros s region s ther e i s some variatio n in th e averag e siz e of thes e unit s (Tabl e 9)
. A s explaine din Chapte r 3 , unit siz e i s a n importan t variabl e i

n determinin g new-plant

cost s an d life-extensio n costs . 

## Tabl e 9 . Averag e Size o f Generatin g Units Used t o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , by NER C Regio n an d b y Fue l Typ e (Megawatts ) Regio n ECA R ERCO T MAA C MAI N MAP P NPC C SER C SP P WSC C Tota l Contiguou s Unite d State s Coa l Ga s Oi l 43 2 62 7 43 9 42 7 38 7 27 2 43 5 49 2 37 7 43 1 31 9 30 8
34 9 29 8 31 2 28 3 30 8 23 2
40 5 43 4 55 0 43 7 40 4 NER C = Nort h America n Electri cReliabilit yCouncil

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration

. For m EIA-860, ' Annua l Electri cGenerato rReport, " Decembe r1986
. Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 19P.2 9



## Figure 4 . Numbe r an d Nameplate Capacit y o f Coal-Fire d Unit s Use d t o Develo p Life-Extensio n Costs , b y Size

C O ' c

C D

. O 

### E 3



### 100 '

20 0 >20 0 >30 0 >40 0 >50 0 >60 0 -30 0 -40 0 -50 0 -60 0 -70 0 >70 0 >80 0 -80 0 Uni t Size(Megawatts ) Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration , Offic e o f Coai , Nuclear , Electri can d Alternativ e Fuels ,

Electri cPowe rOivision

.



## Figure 5 . Numbe r an d Nameplate Capacit y o f Oil-Fire d Unit s Use d t o Develo p Life Extensio n Costs , by Size 16 0ts c 3 

### !*

_ 

### o h - < D

. O 

### £ 3 Z 

### 14 0 12 0 10 0 

### 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0

Source : 

### 100 - >20 0 >30 0 >40 0 >50 0 >60 0 >70 0 >80 0

20 0 -30 0 -40 0 -50 0 -60 0
_ -70 0 -80 0 Uni t Siz e (Megawatts ) Energ y Informatio n Administration , Offic e o f Coal , Nuclear , Electri c an d Alternativ e Fuels , Electri c Powe r Division .

2 0 Energy Infonnatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plants

### P.3 0

Figur e 6 .

c



### E 3 

### Numbe r an d Nameplat e Capacit y o f Gas-Fire d Unit s Use d t o Develo p Life Extensio n Costs , b y Siz e

100 - 20 0 >20 0 >30 0 >40 0 >50 0 >60 0 >70 0 >80 0 -30 0 -40 0 -50 0 -60 0 -70 0 -80 0
Source : 

### Uni t Siz e (Megawatts )

Energ yInformatio n Administration , Offic e o f Coal , Nuclear , Electri can d Alternativ e Fuels

. Electri cPowe rDivision

. 

# Overnigh t Capita l Cost s of Lif e Extensio n Capital cost s of

lif e extensio n fo

r fossil-fue l plant s vary for many reasons . Considerabl e uncertainty surround s ho w individual utilitie s wil l approac hth e lif e extensio n of particular

plants
. Fo r

some plants , th e utility may choos e t o inves t

i n extensiv e capital improvement s tha t exten dth e lif

e of th e plan t wel l beyon dth e anticipate d retiremen t

date
. Fo r

othe r plants , th e utility ma

y choos e t o mak

e minimal capital investment s and , in

stead , prolon g th e lif

e o f th e plant throug henhance d maintenance
. Fo r

stil l othe r

plants , th e utility ma

y choos e t o combin e lif

e extensio n wit

hplan t modifica

tion s an dimprovements
. Th e variability cause db y thes e approache s t o lif

e extensio n i s no t

capture di n th e refurbishment

cost s reporte dhere
. In th e method

olog y usedhere , th e thre e mos t importan t

factor s tha t determin e life-extensio n cost s ar e th e plant' s fue l type , it s size , an dit s location
. In general , coal-fire dplant s ar e mor e expensiv e t o refurbis hthan eithe r oil

- o r gas firedplants , becaus e coal i s th e mos t corrosiv e of

th e thre e fuels
. Coal-fire dplant s als o hav e pollution

contro l equipment

an dextensiv e fuel-handlin g facili

ties , whic hrequir e mor e costl y refurbishment
. In term s of cos t per uni t o f capacity (dollar s pe r

kilo

watt) , th e large r

th e plant , th e lowe r

th e cos t for lif e extension
. Fo r

example , a600-megawat t plan t wil l no t cos t twic e a s muc ht o refurbis ha s a300-megawat t plant
. j A s withnew-plan t

capita l costs , capita l cost s o f lif e extensio nvary fromregio nt o region
. A s mentione di n Chapte r 3 , regional multiplier s tha t reflec t different la

bo r rate s an ddifferent

cost s for material s an dsupplie s ar e use dt o adjus t

capita l cost s of

lif e extension
. Thes e multiplier s rang e from0.9 3 i n th e SER C Regio nt o 1.0 4 i n th e WSC C Region ! an dHawaii
. I nadditio nt o th e capital cost s o f lif e extensio nesti

mate dhere , many refurbishe dplant s wil l als o requir e increase doperatio n an dmaintenanc e (O&M ) expendi

ture s t o maintai nthei r

condition
. A recen t

repor t title d Coal-Fired

Electric Power

Plant Life Extension: An Overview, prepare dby Oa

k Ridg e National Laboratory , es timate dthat

refurbishe dplant s woul drequir e a naddi

tional $1 1 per

kilowatt (198 7 dollars ) i

n O&M expen diture s eac hyear

durin g thei r

extende doperatin g pe riod. 19 

### Tabl e 1 0 provide s th e estimate dcapital cost s of lif e extensio n by plan t

type , usin g th e midlevel-of-effor t factors
. Bot

hth e national capacity-weighte daverag e
'''Taylor
. MJ
. an dL.C
. Fuller
. Coal-Fired Electric Power

Plant Life Extension: An Overview, Oa k Ridg e Nationa l Laborator y (Oa k Ridge
. Tennessee
. Jul y 1986)
.

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil'Fue l Stea m Plant s 2 1

### P.3 1



## Tabl e 10 . Rang e of Estimate d Overnigh t Capita l Cost s o f Life Extension , b y Plan t Typ e (198 7 Dollar s pe r Kilowatt )

Oil-Fire d Plan t Typ e Capacit yWeighte d Average *
14 2 9 5 7 3 Lowes t 103 7 8 6 0 Individua l Plan t Highes t 27 2 14 3 10 5 Thes e cost s represen t nationa l averages . Note : Thes e cost s ar e develope d usin g th e mid-level-o(-ertort factors

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration , Offic e o f Coal

. Nuclear , Electri can d Alternat e Fuels , Electri cPowe rDivision

.



### an dth e lowes t

an dhighes t

life-extensio n cost s fo

r in

dividual coal- , oil- , an dgas-firedplant s i n th e inventory of availabl e capacity ar e given
. Fo r individual coal

firedplants, , th e lowes t

cos t for lif e extensio n i s $10 3 pe r kilowatt an dth e highes t

i s $27 2 per

kilowatt
. Th e siz e of eac hplant

i s th e major

cos t facto r o f lif e exten
sion , wit hlarge r plant s havin g lowe r

pe r kilowatt life

extensio n cost s than smaller plants
. In additio n t o th e national capacity-weighte daverag e life-extensio n cost s withmi dlevel-of-effor t factors , Ta

bl e 1 1 provide s averag e capacity-weighte dcost s fo r NER C Regions
. Becaus e of uncertainty abou t

th e con ditio n of particular

plants , averag e cost s ar e als o pre sented , usin g th e lo w an dhig hlevel-of-effor t factor s describe di

n Chapte r 3
. Plant s i n relativel y goo dcon ditio n generall y requir e fewer resource s t o refurbis h tha n plant s i n poore r

condition
. A t

th e national level , estimate dcapital cost s o f lif e extensio n fo r

coal-fire d plant s rang e from$8 4 t o $21 6 pe r kilowatt , withamid

cos t o f $142 pe r kilowatt
. Fo r

oil-fire dplants , th e es timate dcost s rang e from$5 9 t o $14 5 pe r kilowatt , wit

h amid-cos t

of $9 5 pe r kilowatt
. Fo r

gas-fire dplants , th e cost s rang e from$4

4 t o $11 2 pe r

kilowatt , wit

ha mid-cos t of $7 3 pe r kilowatt
. Capital cost s o f lif e ex tensio n fo r

aplan t i n relativel y goo dconditio n wit h n o major problem s shoul db e near th e lo w en do f

th e range , whil e cost s fo r

plant s i n poo r conditio n woul d b e near th e hig hend
. Regionally , estimate dcapita l cost s of lif e extensio n for plant s burnin g different

fuel s var y significantly
. Th e mi dlevel-of-effor

t cos t for th e lif e extensio n of

coal

firedplant s range s from$130.3 8 pe r kilowatt i n th e SER C Regio n t o $176.3 9 pe r kilowatt i n th e WSC C Region
. Thre e major

factor s contribut e t o thi s wid e pric e range . First , th e SER C Region , whic hencom passe s mos t

of th e southeastern Unite dStates , ha s lowe r labo r rate s an dmaterial cost s than th e WSC C Region
. Second , mos t

o f th e availabl e coal-fire dplant s in th e Wes t

(5 9 percent ) ar e equippe dwithflue ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD ) system s for pollutio n control , compare dwit honl y afe w i n th e SER C Regio n (1 4 percent). 2 0 

### Accordin g t o th e analysis , refurbishment of th e FG D systemaccount s fo r onl y 3. 9 percen t

of th e direc t cos t of extendin g th e lif

e of coal-fire dplant s i n th e SER C Region , whil e accountin g fo r 16. 1 percen t in th e WSC C Region
. Third , o n average , th e coal-fire d unit s i n th e SER C Regio n ar e large r thanthos e i

n th e WSC C Region
. Th e mos t importan t

regio ni n term s o f coal-fire dlife-extensio n potential , th e ECA RRegion , ha s capital cost s for

lif e extensio n o

f $141.0 3 per

kilo

watt , slightl y belo w th e national average . Difference s i

n regional labo r

rate s an di

ncost s fo r material an dsupplie s als o pla y a n importan t

rol e i n th e rang e of estimate dcapital cost s o f lif e extensio nfo

r oil-fire dplants
. Th e mos t

importan t region s fo

r oil-fire d life-extensio n potentia l ar e th e NPC C an dSER C Re

gions
. Th e NPC C Region , whic hinclude s Ne w York , Vermont , Maine , Ne w Hampshire , Massachusetts , an d Connecticut , ha s ami dlevel-of-effor t cos t fo r extend

in g th e live s o f

oil-fire dplant s of

$97.5 8 pe r

kilowatt , whil e th e SER C Regio n ha s amid-cos t of $87.3 6 per kilowatt
. Th e SER C Regio n ha s th e lowes t labo r cost s an dcost s for

material s an dsupplie s i

n th e Nation , whil e th e NPC C Regio n i s onl y slightl y belo w th e highest
. Thus , th e pric e differenc e betwee n th e tw o mos t im

portan t region s for

oil-fire dlif

e extensio npotential i s du e primaril y t o th e highe r regional cost s i nth e NPCC
. Th e rang e i n estimate dcapital cost s of lif e extensio n for gas-fire dplant s i s abou t

th e same a s tha t

for oil-fire d plants ; midlevel-of-effor

t cost s vary fro

m$69.7 7 per kilowatt i n th e ERCO T Regio n t o $79.5 7 per kilowatt i n th e WSC C Region
. Again , mos t of thi s differenc e can b e attribute dt o difference s i n labo r costs , th e cost s of material s an dsupplies , andth e averag e uni t siz e be

twee nth e tw o regions
. Thes e cost s ar e relativel y lo w i n th e ERCO T Regio nan dar e highfo r th e WSC C Region
. Th e ERCO T Regio n als o ha s large r gas-fire d plant s than th e WSC C Region
. Anothe r wa y t o compar e estimate dcapita l cost s o f lif e extensio nfo

r plant s burnin g differen

t fuel s i s t o cate
goriz e th e costs_b y thei r variou s accounts . Tabl e 1 2 give s th e estimate ddirec t cost s of extendin g aplant' s life , b y account . I

n al l thre e plant

types , th e fossil-fue

l

:t) PE I Associates
. Inc.
. "CER s fo r Lif e Extensio n Cost s fo r Fossi l Fuel-Fire dElectri c Utilit y Plants " (Washington , DC
. Novembe r 1987)
.

2 2 Energy informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

## P.3 2

tabl e 11
. Estimate d Overnigh t Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extension , b yNERC

Region , Alaska , an d Hawaii , an d b yFue l Typ e (198 7 Dollar s pe rKilowatt )

ECA R Coa l Ga s O N ERCO T Coa l Ga s Oi l MAA C Coa l Ga s Oi l MAI N Coa l Ga s Oi l MAP P Coa l Ga s Oi l NPC C Coa l Ga s Oi l SER C Coa l Ga s Oi l SP P Coa l Ga s Oi l WSC C Coa l Ga s Oi l Alask a Coa l Ga s Oil Hawai i Coa l Ga s Oi l Tota l Unite d State s Coa l Ga s Oi l 83.6 8

80.8 3 41.8 1
79.1 3 45-2 2 70.4 2 81.2 6

87.7 9

96.2 7 45.2 1 60.5 2 77.4 8 43.0 1 54.1 8 82.0 4 43.4 4 55.0 0 105.5 7 47.6 9 61.7 8 141.0 3
135,3 9 69.7 7
133.4 0 75.4 4 113.5 4 136,9 5

147.1 7

162.0 3 75.4 4 97.5 8 130.3 8 71.7 6 87.3 6 137,8 4 72.4 8 88.6 8 176.3 9 79.5 7 99.6 2 215,0 2

206.1 8 106.8 7
203.5 6 115.5 7 172.8 6 208.9 6

224.1 7

247.1 2 115.5 6 148.5 6 198,8 4 109.9 3 133.0 1 210.1 0 111.0 3 135.0 1 268.3 9 121.8 9 151.6 6

85.6 6
84,2 3 43-8 6 59.0 0 138.1 2
141.5 2 73.1 7 95.1 2 210.2 8
215.7 3 112,0 9 144.8 2

* Se e Appendi x8 , Tabl e B 2 to rhigh , mid

. an d lo wlevel-of-effor t factors , b yfue l type
.

~ = N o capacit yo f thi s typ e i s considered

. Note : Level-of-effor f factor s expres s numencall yth e amoun t o f equipment , labor , matenals , an d supplie s require d t o refurbis h a compo nen t o f a plant

. Mid-rang e factor s ar e thos e neede d fo ra typica l plant

. Hig h an d lo wlevel-of-effor t factor s estimat e th e amount s expende d i n refurbishmen t project s tha t ar e mor e o rles s costl ytha n thos e fo ra typica l plant

. Source : Energ yinformatio n Administration , Offic e o f Coal

. Nuclear

. Electri can d Alternat e Fuels , Electri cPowe rDivision

. suppl y syste man dth e turbin e generato r ar e th e mos t significan t

accounts . I n addition , coal-fire dplant s als o requir e substantia l capita l expenditure s fo r stea mgen eratin g draft , FGD , an dfuel-handlin g systems . Thes e additiona l expenditure s ar e amajo r reaso n wh y extend

in g th e live s o f

coal-fire dplant s i s mor e costl y tha n extendin g th e live s o f

gas - o r oil-fire dplants
. I n addition , a s state di n Chapte r 2 , refurbishe dplant s ar e require dt o mee t

th e stric t

environmenta l perfor

manc e requirement s o f

th e RNSP S i

f th e cos t o f refur

bishin g th e ol dboile r

exceed s 5 0 percen t

o f th e cos t of ane w boiler
. Meetin g thes e stricte r standard s woul d requir e significan t

expenditure s beyon dthos e esti

mate dhere
. I n thi s study , however , th e estimate dcos t o f refurbishin g plan t

boiler s neve r

exceed s 5 0 percen t o f th e cos t of ane w boiler
. Thus , non e o f th e plant s in thi s stud y i s expecte dt o hav e t o mee t th e RNSP S en vironmenta l standards
. Also , th e cos t estimate s devel

ope di nthi s repor t

ar e base do n curren t

environmenta l law s an dregulations
. I f mor e stringen t

standard s wer e impose do nexistin g plants , the n cos t estimate s fo r

lif e extensio n woul db e considerabl y highe r tha n estimate d here
.
Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 2 3

### P.3 3

### P.3 4



## Tabl e 12 . Averag e Estimate d Direct Life-Extensio n Costs , by Fue l Typ e

an d Accoun t {198 7 Dollar s pe r Kilowatt )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Coal Cos t Percen t o f

Tota l Ga s

Cos t Percen t o f

Tota l Oi l

Cos t Percen t o f

Tota l 20 1 Lan d an d lan d right s 21 1 Yardwor k 21 2 Steam-generato rbuildin g 21 3 Turbin e heate rcontro l buildin g 218 ACoal-handlin g structure s * 218 B Miscellaneou s building s ° 21 9 Stac k

structur e 22 0 Fossil-stea m suppl ysyste m 22 1 Steam-generatin g syste m 22 2 Draf t syste m 22 3 Ash - an d dust-handlin g syste m 22 4 Fuel-handlin g syste m 22 5 FG D structur e 22 6 FG D equipmen t 22 7 Instrumen t an d control s 22 8 Boile rplan t miscellaneou s item s .. . 23 1 Turbin e generato r 23 3 Condensin g syste m 23 4 Feed-heatin g syste m 23 5 Othe rturbin e plan t equipmen t ...;.. . 23 6 Proces s control s 23 7 Turbin e plan t miscellaneou s item s 24 1 Switchgea r 24 2 Statio n servic e equipmen t 24 3 Switchboard s 24 4 Protectiv e equipmen t 24 5 Electrica l structure s 24 6 Powe ran d contro l wirin g 25 1 Transportatio n an d lif t equipmen t
. 25 2 Air , water , an d stea m system s 25 3 Communication s equipmen t 25 4 Furnishings , fixtures

. & lab

.

equipmen t 25 5 Wastewate rtreatmen t equipmen t
. 26 1 Makeu p wate rstructure s &

equipmen t 26 2 Hea t rejectio n syste m Tota l direc t cos t 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.0 4 0.0 8 0.0 1 0.1 1 44.3 7 1.3 1 12.0 4 0.4 6

. 11.5 1 0.8 3 8.8 4 2.9 9 0.0 7 32.8 5 0.3 0 0,4 3 0.4 3 0.0 4 0.0 3 3.4 0 0.0 9 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.2 2 0.1 8 0.0 1 0.3 4 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.1 0 0.0 5 0.5 1 121.8 1 0, 0

0. 0 0, 1 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 1 37. 1 1. 1 10. 1 0. 4 9. 6

. 5 5. 7 2. 5 0. 1 27. 5 0. 3 0. 4 0, 3 0. 0 0. 0 2. 9 0. 1

. 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0. 2 0, 0 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 5 100. 0 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.1 4 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 8 16.3 6 0.3 2 1,4 7 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.0 0 0.0 0 3.2 7 • 0.0 8 36.0 9 0.4 6 0.4 8 0.4 7 0.0 0 0.0 8 1.3 8 0.0 8 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.2 3 0.0 1 0.3 7 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 7 0.0 6 0.5 3 62.2 3 0. 0

0. 0 0. 2 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 26. 3 0, 5 2. 4 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 0. 0 5. 2 0. 1 58. 0 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0, 0 0. 1 2. 2 0. 1 0. 0 0- 0 0. 0 0- 4 0. 0 0. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 1 0. 8 0,0 0

0,0 0 0.1 3 0.0 4 0.0 0 o.o t 0.1 2 27,9 7 9-4 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.09 0.0 0 0,0 0 3.0 7 0.0 8 33.9 2 0,4 4 0.4 5 0.4 5 0.0 2 0.0 7 1.3 0 0.1 8 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 8 0.1 9 0.0 1 0.3 5 0.0 3 0,0 1 0.1 0 0.0 4 0.5 4 100. 0 80.1 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 2 0, 1 0. 0 0- 0 0- 2 34. 9 11. 8 0, 0 0. 0 1. 4 0. 0 0. 0 3. 8 0, 1 42. 3 0- 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 0 0. 1 1. 6 0. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 2 0. 0 0. 4 0, 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 1 0. 6 100. 0

• Thi s classificatio n include s subaccount s 218L , 218M

. 218N , 2180
. 218P , 2180
. 218H , 218T , 218 W (Appendi xC)

. • > Thi s classificatio n include s subaccount s 218B , 2181 , 218U , 218 V (Appendi xC)

. FGD=Flu e ga s desulfurization

. Notes : cMi d level-of-effor t factor s wer e use d t o develo p thes e costs
. Mi d level-of-effor t factor s expres s numericall yth e amoun t o f re source s require d t o refurpis h a componen t o f a typica l plant

. pTotal s ma yno t equa l su m o f component s becaus e o f independen t rounding

. Source : Energ yInfonnatio n Administration

. Offic e o f Coal

. Nuclear

. Electri can d Alternat e Fuels

. Electri cPowe rDivision

.


### A s mentioned , plan t

siz e i s anothe r

importan t

facto r i n determinin g life-extensio n costs . Tabl e 1 3 show s ho w estimate dlife-extensio n cost s vary for plant s o f differ

en t sizes , illustratin g wh y region s wit hlarge r plant s wil l hav e lowe r

life-extensio n cost s pe r

uni t o f capacity
. (Se e als o Appendi x A. ) 

# Compariso n wit h Othe r Studie s pe r kilowatt (198 7 dollars)
. In a

narticl e prepare db y th e Electri c Powe r

Researc hInstitut e (EPRI ) title d "Longe r Lif e for Fossil-Fue l Plants, " amuc hbroade r se t o f estimate s wa s developed , withlife-extensio n cost s rangin g from$12 5 t o $62 5 per kilowatt (198 7 dollars)
. Bot

ho f thes e studie s ar e base do ndat afro m alimite dnumbe r

o f life-extensio n projects
. Neithe r de

velop s amethodolog y t o estimate life-extensio n cost s no r attempt s t o estimat e averag e regional an dnational life-extensio ncosts . Th e cost s estimate di nthi s chapte r fal l withi n th e cos t

range s of

actual utilit

y experienc e reporte db y thes e tw o studies
. Very fe w studie s hav e calculate dlife-extensio n costs . A n Oa k Ridg e National Laborator y stud y title dCoalFired Electric Power

Plant Life Extension: An Overview estimate dlife-extensio n cost s rangin g fro m$4 3 t o $10 6

2 4 Energy Infonnatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Costa o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil'Fue l Stea m Plant s

### P.3 5



## Tabl e 13 . Averag e Estimate d Life-Extensio n Costs , by Plan t Size an d



## Fue l Typ e (198 7 Dollar

s Pe rKilowatt)

100-20 0 >200-30 0 >300-40 0 >400-50 0 > 500-60 0 >600-70 0 >700-80 0 >80 0 Weighte d Averag e fo rAl l Size s 185.5 3 166.8 0 155.9 4 155.1 4 136.9 9 127.8 7 133.3 7 115.0 2 141.5 2 92.4 9 81.3 4 73,7 5 67,7 4 63.0 8 65.7 1 57.3 9 62.3 4 73.1 7 128.B 1 107.5 6 104.6 3 96.2 6 89.0 8 90.2 4 87.5 6 78.4 0 95.1 2 Note : Mi d level-of-effo n factor s wer e use d t o develo p thes e costs
. Mi d level-of-effor t factor s expres s numericall yth e amoun t of re source s require d t o refurbis h a componen t o f a typica l plant

. Source : Energ yinformatio n Administration

. Offic e o f Coal , Nuclear

. Electri can d Alternat e Fuels

. Electri cPowe rDivision

. 

# Limitation s of thi s Methodolog y
Whil e cos t

engineer s an dutilit

y consultant s hav e con curre dwit

hth e methodolog y describe di n thi s chapter , assumption s wer e mad e i

n th e methodolog y that

intro

duc e uncertainty i

n th e life-extensio n cost s tha t wer e estimated
. Assumption s wer e mad e becaus e life

extension-cos t

dat aar e no t

availabl e t o validat e esti

mate dcost s o r

t o calibrat e th e methodology
. Source s of

uncertainty i

n th e methodolog y occu r i n several areas . First , th e capita l cost s of typica l plant s ar e use dt o approximat e th e cost s of actual ne w plants
. T o develo p actual new-plan t cost s fo r eac hdifferent plan t design , however , woul dhav e bee n almos t a s costl y a s developin g actua l life-extensio n cost s fro m engineerin g analysis
. Second , th e cost-to-siz e equatio n usedt o calculat e th e overnigh t capital cost s for

ne w plant s wa s derive dfromth e cost s of coal-fire dplant s operate db y th e Tennesse e Valle y Authorit y an d quote dprice s fo

r steamboilers
. Th e equatio n wa s ad

juste dt o produc e ne w oil

- an dgas-firedplan t costs , usin g th e rati o of

th e overnigh t

capital cost s of

ne w oil

- an dgas-fire dplant s t o ne w coal-fire dplant s devel

ope dfromth e Concept- 5 costs . Thi s adjustment ma y no t b e sufficien

t t o estimate accuratel y th e cost s o f oil

an dgas-firedplant s of

different sizes
. If dat awer e avail

able , aseparate cost-to-siz e relationshi p woul dhav e bee n estimate dfor

oil

- an dgas-firedplants
. However , sinc e fe w oil

- an dgas-fire dstea mplant s hav e been built sinc e th e earl y 1970s , cos t dat afor the mar e scarce . Third , ratio s wer e base do n th e cos t o f ane w 800-megawat

t plant , sinc e thi s i s th e onl y siz e plan t fo r whic hth e Concept- 5 mode l ha s dat afo r al l thre e plant types . T o hav e develope dnew-plan t cost s for th e thre e plan t type s woul dhav e bee n expensive
. A tes t wa s don e using th e ratio s froma500-megawat t coal-fire d plant , an dth e result s at

th e national level differe dby les s than 5 percent . Fourth , th e level-of-effor t an d probability factors , whic hwer e base do nth e expert

judgmen t o f utilit y engineers , ar e obviou s source s o f uncertainty
. A t

thi s time , dat aar e no t

availabl e t o es timat e thes e values
. A s dat abecom e available , thes e factor s can b e estimate dmore accurately
. Lif e extensio n i s certai n t o b e applie dt o some degre e at some agin g powe r

plants
. A s previousl y noted , th e choic e of lif e extensio nove r

othe r alternative s (suc h a s retirement , repowering , loa dmanagement , conser vation , purchase dpower , an dne w capacity ) wil l de

pen do n ahos t

o f factor s peculia

r t o eac hutility an d individual plant
. Th e capital cost s for lif e extensio n develope di

nthi s repor t

for us e i n EI A model s ar e base do nth e assumptio n tha t th e expenditur e o f

th e estimate dcost s wil l returnplant s t o thei r origina l avail

abilit y an doperatin g efficienc y an dexten dthei r oper atin g live s 2

0 years . Th e lac k

of dat ao nth e cos t

an d effectivenes s o f

actua l life-extensio n project s doe s no t allo w validatio no f

thes e life-extensio ncosts . There

fore , th e cos t

estimate s provide di

n thi s repor t

ar e in

sufficien t t o estimat e th e exten t

o r degre e o f

life

extensio n effor

t tha t wil l occu r

o r th e additiona l powe r generatio n suc heffor

t wil l enable
. I n ligh t o f thes e uncertainties , th e estimate dlife

extensio n cost s presente di n thi s chapte r

shoul db e in

terprete da s reasonabl e approximation s of th e averag e overnigh t capital cos t

of lif e extensio n a

t th e regional an dnational levels
. When actual life-extensio ndat abe

com e available , i t

wil l b e possibl e t o modif

y th e meth

odolog y an dimprov e th e estimate s of life-extensio n cost s give n i

n thi s report .



# - Summar

y
A t th e plant level , averag e overnigh t capita l cost s of lif e extensio n rang e fro

m$60 t o $27 2 per

kilowatt , de

Energ y Informatio n Administration / Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o fUf e Extensio n fo r Fossit-Fue l Stea m Plant s 2 5

### P.3 6

pendin g o n th e plant' s fuel type , size , an dlocation
. Thes e cos t

estimate s ar e jus t

on e componen t

o f th e informatio n neede db y autilit y whe n determinin g whethe r t o exten dth e lif

e of aparticula r

plant
. Othe r factor s suc ha s th e typ e o f capacit y neede d(base , in

termediate , peak) , th e availabilit y o f fuels , an dth e availabilit y o f

replacemen t

powe r ar e equall y impor

tant . Utilitie s tha t

nee dadditiona l capacit y wil l weig h th e feasibility an dcos t

o f extendin g th e live s o f

olde r unit s agains t

th e cos t

o f ne w capacity , replacemen t power , o r

othe r option s fo r

meetin g demand
. Whil e thi s analysi s focuse s o nth e refurbishmen t o f powe r plant s a s the y nea r

retirement , in th e future , plannin g fo r

lif e extensio no f

auni t ma y begi nlon g befor e it reache s it s 25t hyea r

o f operation
. Utilitie s ma y brin g ne w plant s o nlin e wit hth e intentio n o f operatin g the mfo r

5 0 t o 6 0 years . Operatio n an dmain

tenanc e procedure s coul db e develope dt o maintai n th e plants ' availabilit y at acceptabl e level s throughou t thei r extende dlives
.

CincinnatiGas & Electric's Beckjord plant has undergone refurbishment work

2 6 Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

### P.3 7 

# Appendi x A Equatio n Relatin g Tota l Plan t Cost s t o Plan t Size

### P.3 8 

## Appendi x A


# Equatio n Relatin g Tota l Plan t Costs t o Plan t Siz e

Th e equatio n use dt o relat e tota l overnigh t plan t cost s t o plant

siz e (discusse din Chapte r 3 ) wa s derive db y PE I Associates , Inc
. fro

macurv e publishe dby Bashambu an dYate s of th e Tennesse e Valle y Authority 2 1 

### an dfrom quote dprice s fo

r stea mboilers. 2 2 

### Th e cost-to-siz e relationshi p is :

Cos t = (Size) 1 

### (Plan t

Typ e Factor )
Where : Cos t

= Tota l plant

cos t i n 198 7 dollar s per

kilowatt (SAW ) Siz e = Siz e of

aspecifi c plant

i n megawatt s A = 5,28 9 B = 0.265 6 Plan t Typ e Facto r

= 1. 0 fo r Coal-Fire dPlant s 0.9 4 for OH-Fire dPlant s 0.6 1 for Gas-Fire dPlant s Fo r a153-megawat

t coal-fire dplant , th e tota l plan t cos t is : 5,28 9 Cos t = •.0.265 6 

### (1.0 ) (153) L 

### Cos t = 1,390.34 SA W

Cost s fo r oil-an dgas-firedplant s ar e calculate di n asimila r manner , excep t

tha t the y ar e multiplie db y factor s o f 0.9 4 an d0.61 , respectively , t o accoun t for thei r lowe r constructio n costs . Figur e A l show s th e cost-to-siz e relationshi p for ne w coal-fire dplants
. Figur e A l als o show s actual constructio n cost s pe r kilowatt includin g interes t

fo r coal-fire d an dlignite plant s that

starte doperatio n i

n 1984 , 1985 , an d198 6 (denote db y "X " i n th e figure). Thes e actual cost s includ e th e initia

l plant cos t (cumulativ e t o th e dat e o f th e initial commercia l operation ) plu s th e cost s of al l addition s t o th e plant
. Th e dollar s include din actua l plan t cost s ar e for

thos e year s in whic hexpenditure s wer e made. " Th e cost-to-siz e relationshi p fo r ne w coal-fire dplant s i

n Figur e A l canno t

b e compare ddirectl y wit hactual plant

cost s becaus e th e cost s ar e i

n 198 7 dollar s an dd o no t

includ e interest
. Convertin g th e actual plant cost s fo r eac hyear

t o 198 7 dollar s woul drais e th e cos t pe r kilowatt , whil e eliminatin g th e interes t expens e i

n th e actual plant

cost s t o ge t overnigh t constructio n cost s woul dlowe r th e cos t pe r kilowatt
.

:! Bashambu
. Ra mL „ an dRalp hL
. Yates
. Tennesse e Valle y Authority , "Whic hi s Cheaper ? A Smal l o r aLarg e Unit, " 1985Transactions of the American Association of Cost Engineers (Morgantown , Wes t Virginia , America n Associatio n o f Cos t Engineers
. 1985)
. 22 Richardso n Engineerin g Services , Inc , "Th e Richardso n Rapi dConstructio n Cos t Estimatin g System " (Sa n Marcos , California
. 1987) , Sectio n 100-200
. 2 JEnerg y Informatio n Administration , Historical Plant Cost and Annual Production Expenses for Selected Electric Plants 1984, 1985, 1986- Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 2 9

### P.3 9

Figur e A1 . 2000- i Relationshi p Betwee n Overnight Constructio n Costs an d Uni t Siz e fo r

Ne wCoal-Fire d Plant s

10 0 30 0 50 0 1100 130 0 Not e Source : 

### 70 0 90 0 Uni t Siz e (Megawatts ) X denote s actua l constructio n cost s pe rkilowatt , includin g interes t fo rcoal-fire d an d lignit e plant s tha t starte d operatio n i n 1984 , 1985
. an d 1986
. Th e dollar s include d i n actua l plan t cost s ar e fo rthos e year s i n whic h expenditure s wer e made

. Energ yInformatio n Administration , Offic e o f Coal , Nuclear , Electri can d Alternativ e Fuels , Electri cPowe rDivision

.

3 0 Energy Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Costs o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Foaail-Fue l Stea m Plant s

### P.4 0


# Appendi x B Probabilit

y an d Level-of-Effor

t Factor s fo r Coal- , Oil- , an d Gas-Fired Powe r Plant

s

### P.4 1 

## Appendi x B


# Probabilit

y an d Level-of-Effor

t Factors fo r Coal- , Oil- , an d Gas-Fired Powe r Plants

Tabl e B1 . Probabilit y Factors , by Accoun t an d b y Fue l Typ e

20 1 21 1 21 2 21 3 21 8 A 21 8 B 21 9 22 0 22 1 22 2 22 3 22 4 22 5 22 6 22 7 22 8 23 1 23 3 23 4 23 5 23 6 23 7 24 1 24 2 24 3 24 4 24 5 24 6 25 1 • 25 2 25 3 25 4 25 5 26 1 26 2 Concept- 5 Accoun t
Lan d an d lan d right s Yardwor k Steam-generato rbuildin g Turbine , heater , contro l buildin g Coal-handlin g structure s » Miscellaneou s building s b Stac k structur e Fossil-stea m suppl ysyste m Steam-generatin g syste m Draf t syste m Ash - an d dust-handlin g syste m Fuel-handlin g syste m FG D structur e FG D equipmen t Instrumentatio n & control s Boiler-plan t miscellaneou s item s Turbin e generato r Condensin g syste m Feed-heatin g syste m Othe rturbine-plan t equipmen t Proces s control s Turbine-plan t miscellaneou s item s Switchgea r Statio n servic e equipmen t Switchboard s Protectiv e equipmen t Electrica l structure s Powe ran d contro l wirin g Transportatio n an d lif t equipmen t Air

. water , an d stea m system s Communication s equipmen t Furnishings , fixtures , & la b equipmen t Wastewate rtreatmen t equipmen t Make-u p wate rstructure s & equipmen t Hea t rejectio n syste m Coa l 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.2 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.9 0 0.1 5 1.0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 5 0. 1 S 0.1 5 0.9 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 5 0.1 5 Fue l Typ e Ga s 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1 0 0,1 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.9 0 0.1 5 1.0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.9 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 5 0.1 5 Oi l 0,0 0 0.0 1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 1.0 0 1.0 0 0.9 0 0.1 5 1.0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.9 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.10 ' 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 5 0.1 5

• Thi s classificatio n include s subaccount s 218L

. 218M , 218N

. 2180
. 218P

. 2180 , 218R , 218T

. 218 W {Appendi xC)

. " Thi s classificatio n include s subaccount s 218B , 2181 , 218U , 218 V (Appendi xC)

. Note : Probabilit yfactor s quantit ydifference s i n wea ran d expres s th e likelihoo d tha t give n component s wil l nee d t o b e refurbishe d afte r2 5 year s o f service

. — - Source : Energ yinformatio n Administration , Concept- 5 database , a s update d b yPE I Associates , Inc. , i n Regional Capital, Operating

andMaintenance Cost Estimate

tor Emission

Control Equipment

Required

for New Fossil Steam Power Plants unde rcontrac t t o th e U.S

. Departmen t o f Energ y (Cincinnati

. Ohio , Novembe r1985)

.

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 3 3

## P.4 2

Tabl e B2

. Level-of-Effor t Factors , b yAccoun t an d b yFue l Typ e

Concept- 5 Accoun t Coa l Lo w Mi d Hig h Ga s Oi l Lo w Mi d Hig h Lo w Mi d Hig h 20 1 21 1 21 2 21 3 21 8 A 21 8 B 21 9 22 0 22 1 22 2 22 3 22 4 22 5 22 6 22 7 22! ) 2.1 1 2:C ) :KM :'-M> 2:1.
. I'. i 7 2.1 1 2-1 2 2-1 3 24 4 24 5 24 6 25 1 25 2 25 3 25 4 25 5 26 1 26 2 Lan d an d lan d right s 0.0 0 Yardwor k

0.0 0 Steam-generato rbuildin g 0.0 1 Turbine , heater , contro l buildin g 0.0 1 Coal-handlin g structure s • 0.0 3 Miscellaneou s building s ° 0.0 1 Slac k structur e 0,0 3 Fossil-stea m suppl ysyste m 0.2 0 Steam-generatin g syste m 0.2 0 Draf t syste m 0.2 0 Ash - an d dust-handlin g syste m 0.0 5 Fuel-handlin g syste m 0.2 0 FG D structur e 0.2 5 FG D equipmen t 0.2 5 Instrumentatio n & control s 0.2 0 Boiler-plan t miscellaneou s item s 0.0 3 Turbin e generato r0.2 0 Condensin g syste m 0.0 5 Feed-heatin g syste m 0.0 5 Olhe rturbine-plan t equipmen t 0.0 5 Proces s control s 0.0 5 Turbine-plan t miscellaneou s item s 0.0 5 Swilchgea r0.1 0 Statio n servic e equipmen t 0.0 2 Switchboard s 0.0 2 Protectiv e equipmen t 0.0 4 Electrica l structure s 0.0 3 Powe ran d contro l wirin g .,..- . 0.0 3 Transportatio n an d lif t equipmen t 0.0 2 Air , water , an d stea m system s 0.0 5 Communication s equipmen t 0,0 5 Furnishings , fixtures , & la b equipmen t 0.0 5 Wastewate rtreatmen t equipmen t 0.0 2 Make-u p wate rstructure s & equipmen t 0.0 5 Hea t rejectio n syste m 0.0 5 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 6 0.0 2 0.1 0 0.3 3 0,3 3 0.3 3 0.2 0 0.3 3 0,4 0 0.4 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 7 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 4 0.1 0 0,1 0 0,1 0 0.1 0 0,1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0

0,0 2 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.3 0 0.5 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0,2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0 6
' 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.2 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.0 0

0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0,0 0 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.2 0 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.1 8 0,0 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.0 5 0-0 0

0.0 1 0,0 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 0 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 o.t o 0.3 0 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 7 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 4 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0

0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.0 0 0-0 7 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0 6 0.1 5 0.1 5 0-1 5 0.2 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.0 0

0.0 0 0,0 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.2 5 0.2 5 0.2 0 0.0 3 0.2 0 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0,0 5 0.1 8 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 4 0.0 3
. 0.0 3

' 0.0 2 0,0 5 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 2 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 0

0.0 1 0,0 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.3 3 0.3 3 0.0 1 0.1 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.3 3 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.0 5 0.0 5 0.0 7 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0 4 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0.0 0

0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.2 0 0,4 5 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.0 2 0.1 5 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.5 0 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.1 0 0.0 9 0.0 9 0.0 6 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.2 5 0.1 5 0.1 5

« Thi s classificatio n include s subaccount s 218L

. 218M , 218N , 2180
. 218P

. 218Q

. 2 1 BR

. 218T , 218W , (Appendi xC)

. » Thi s classificatio n include s subaccount s 218B , 2181 , 218U , 218 V (Appendi xC)

. Note : Level-of-effor t factor s expres s numericall yth e amoun t o f equipment , labor , materials , an d supplie s require d t o refurbis h a componen t o f a plant

. Mid-rang e factor s ar e thos e neede d fo ra typica l plant

. Hig h an d lo wlevel-of-eftor t factor s estimat e th e amount s expende d i n refurbishmen t project s tha i ar e mor e o rles s costl ytha n thos e fo ra typica l plant

. Source : Energ yInformatio n Administration

. Concept- 5 database , a s update d b yPE I Associates

. Inc. , i n Regional Capital, Operating

and Maintenance Cost Estimate

for Emission

Control Equipment

Required

for New Fossil Steam Power Plants unde rcontrac t t o th e U.S

. Departmen t o t Energ y(Cincinnati , Ohio

. Novembe r1985)

.

• 1- r^t—.in

- <~ . Cnn^ii-C i

### P.4 3 

# Appendi x C Th e Concept- 5 Mode l

## Appendi x C



# Th e Concept- 5 Mode l P.4 4



# Introductio n
Thre e compute r

programs , referre dt o a s th e Concept- 5 model , wer e develope db y th e Engineerin g Technol

og y Divisio n of

th e Oa k Ridg e National Laboratory (ORNL). 2 4 

### Thi s computer mode l wa s designe dt o pro vide ametho dt o estimat

e future capital cost s of

dif

feren t type s o f plant s under

variou s economi c an dtech

nica l conditions
. Th e us e o f

th e Concept- 5 model re quire s a n understandin g o

f trend s i n contributin g cos t factors , suc ha s labo r

rates , labo r

productivity , an d price s o f material s andequipment , a s afunction of lo

catio n an dtime
. Fo r

applicatio n i

n projec t evaluatio n studies , thes e cos t

factor s shoul db e base don th e spe cifi c locatio n an ddesign an dconstructio n date s bein g considered
.
Thi s appendi x describe s th e fifthgeneratio n i n th e de

velopment

of th e Concept- 5 model
. A t th e preoperational level , th e CONTA C auxiliar y progra m i s usedt o rea dcost-mode l dat a(i.e. , detaile dcos t break

down s fo r referenc e plants ) fo

r th e variou s type s of plant s an dt o generat e th e cost-mode l dat afile, C O MO
. Th e CONLA M auxiliar

y progra mi s usedt o rea dhis

torical cos t

dat afor factor y equipment , labor , an dsite

relate dmaterial s a

t variou s location s an dt o generat e th e dat afile , LAMA
. Th e tw o auxiliar y programs , CONTA C an dCONLAM , mus t b e usedt o generate , update , an dmodif

y th e dat afiles. Th e operational leve l Concept- 5 progra mretrieve s cost-mode l dat aan dhis

torical cos t

dat afro mthes e tw o dat afiles an duse s themt o generat e cos t

estimate s base do n th e rule s spec ifie db y th e user

a t th e time th e programi s executing
. Th e major

phase s i n developin g th e Concept- 5 mode l ar e summarize di

n Tabl e Cl
.
Th e Concept- 5 model , includin g auxiliar y program s an dcost-mode l an dhistorical cos t dat asets , i s availabl e fromth e Argonn e Cod e Center , Argonn e National Laboratory , 9700 Sout

hCas s Avenue , Argonne , Illi

noi s 60439
. 

# Genera l Descriptio n of th e Concept- 5 Mode l
Th e procedure s usedi

nth e Concept- 5 model are base d o n th e assumptio n tha t

an y central-statio n powe r plan t of th e same typ e ha s approximatel y th e sam e major cos t components , regardles s o f locatio n o r

dat e o f ini

tial operation
. Therefore , i f th e trend s o

f thes e major cos t component s ca

n b e establishe da s afunctiono f time , location , an dplant

size , acos t

estimate fo

r aref

erenc e cas e ca

n b e adjuste dt o fit

any plant
. Th e applicatio n of

thi s approac hrequire s adetaile d cos t mode l fo r eac hplant

typ e as areferenc e conditio n an dth e determinatio n of th e cost-tren drelationships
. Th e generatio n an dupdatin g of thes e dat aset s compris e alarg e effor

t i n th e continuin g developmen t o f th e model
. Dat atha t reflec t historica l trend s i n equipment costs , labo r rates , an dprice s o f

site-relate dmaterial s for 2 3 location s ar e use dt o calculat e cos t indice s fo

r trans
latin g th e cost-mode l dat afromth e bas e (o r reference ) tim e an dlocatio n t o th e specifie dtim e an dlocation
. Th e inpu t t o th e Concept- 5 model consist s of th e plan t ne t electrica l capacity , plan t type , plan t

location , dat e o f purchas e o f

fossil-firedstea

mgenerator , dat e of

re ceip t o f constructio n permit , dat e of initia l commercial operation , an dinteres t

rate . Specifi c constants , vari

ables , an dcos t

array s ca n b e altered
. In addition , th e escalatio nrate s calculate db y th e cod e fro mdat astore d i n th e historical-cost-dat afile ca n b e overridden
. Con

tingenc y case s can b e examine dwithaminimumof effort , an dth e cost-mode l dat acan b e altere dtempo
raril y a t executio n tim e t o take int o accoun t know n cost s o r factor s tha t

affect th e desig n o f

th e plant
. A s a n exampl e of

thes e procedures , suppos e acos t es timat e for th e year 198 7 i s availabl e for

a1100-MW

e PW Rplant

locate da

t asite nea r Middletown, " an da cos t estimat e for

1996 i s desire dfo

r acorrespondin g plant locate do n asimila

r site but near anothe r city
.

;4 Oa k Ridg e Nationa l Laboratory , Engineerin g Technolog y Division
. Concept-5User's Manual (Oa k Ridge , Tennessee
. Januar y 1979)
. 25 Middletow n represent s th e standar dhypothetica l sit e describe di n th e Commercia l Electri c Powe r Cost.Studies
. Energ y Informatio n Administration / Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 37

### P.4 5

Tabl e C1 . Evolutio n o f th e Concept- 5 Mode l

Versio n Majo rFeature s Phas e 1 Experimenta l version , whic h include d onl ya preliminary , cos t mode l fo ra single-uni t pressurize d wate rreacto r (PWR ) plan t Phas e 2 Adde d cos t model s fo rth e lirs t uni t of PWR , boiling-wate rreacto r(BWR)

. coal - an d oil-fire d plant s Adde d historica l cos t dat a fo rcraft labo ran d material s fo rth e generatio n o f cos t indice s an d escalatio n rate s Phas e 3 Update d th e first-uni t cos t model s fo rPWR , BWR , coal - an d oil-fire d plant s t o accoun t fo rmor e stringen t environ menta l an d safet yregulation s betwee n 197 1 an d 197 3 Adde d cos t model s (o rcoal - an d oil-fire d plant s wit h we t limeston e scrubbe rS0 2 remova l system s Adde d cos t model s fo rgas-fire d plant s Adde d cos t model s fo rth e secon d uni t o t two-uni t plant s Phas e 4 Adde d cos t model s fo rhigh-temperatur e gas-coole d reacto r(HTGR ) plant s Modifie d al l second-uni t cos t model s Modifie d cod e t o simplif ydat a inpu t fo roptiona l calculations , t o accep t time-dependen t escalatio n rates , an d t o calculat e allowance s fo rinteres t curin g constructio n an d escalatio n durin g constructio n base d o n cash-fio wcurve s modifie d fo ra specifie d receipt-o t construction-permi t dat e Phas e 5 Update d cos t model s fo rPWR , BWR

. an d coal-fire d plant s wit h an d withou t flu e ga s desulfurizatio n (FGD)

. an d expande d cos t model s t o includ e coal-fire d plant s wit h crnss-c c""poun d (a s wel l a s tandem-compound ) turbin e generator s Adde d historica l cos t dat a fo rfactoryequipmen t fo rth e gmt-fuuc

. of cos t indice s an d escalatio n rate s Modifie d indirec t cost s t o b e calculate d a s a functio n o f uni t siz e i n th e sam e manne ra s direc t costs , rathe rtha n calculate d a s a functio n o f direc t cost s Establishe d a n indirec t cos t accoun t to rcost s o f owner s Improve d time-dependen t escalatio n featur e



### Th e ne w estimat e i s obtaine dby adjustin g factory an d site-relate dcost s for

th e Middletow n plan t

b y th e ratio s o f th e projecte d1996 cos t

indice s for

th e ne w city t o th e 1987 cos t

indice s for

Middletown
. Th e dat abas e i s update dfor

th e Concept- 5 mode l approximatel y every 2 years . Th e techniqu e of

separatin g th e plan t

cos t int o indi

vidual components , applyin g appropriat e cos t indices , an dsummin g th e adjuste dcomponent s i s th e basi c too l use din th e Concept- 5 model
. Thre e set s o f cos t indice s a s function s o f

time an dlocatio n ar e required
. Thes e indice s ar e use dt o adjus t

th e cost s of

equipment , labor , an dsite-relate dmaterials
. Th e equipment-cos t indice s ar e calculate dfro

mBurea u o f Labo r Statistic s data , an dth e labor-cost s indice s ar e calculate dfrombasi c parameters , whic hinclud e wag e rate s fo r th e variou s crafts , labo r

productivity , an dovertim e considerations
. Th e materials-cos t indice s ar e calculate dfromuni t cost s for site-relate dmaterials , whic hinclud e structura l steel , reinforcin g steel , concrete , an dlumber
. Figur e C l indicate s th e general flo w of calculation s i

n th e Concept- 5 model
. Th e compute r cod e follow s thi s procedur e closely ; however , th e illustratio ni s no t a detaile dcomputer-progra mflowchart. Animportan t feature of thi s arrangemen t

i s tha t th e secon dbloc k

of th e diagramuse s th e cost-mode l dat astore din th e COMOfil e fo

r different type s of powe r plants , an dth e fourt hbloc k use s th e historical cos t

dat afor labo r an d material s store dinth e LAM A file for different loca

tions
. Whe n othe r

type s of plant s o r othe r citie s ar e studied , onl y th e cost-mode l dat aset for th e referenc e plant o r th e historical cos t

dat aset fo r th e ne w locatio n i s needed
.

3 8 Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

### P.4 6

Figur e C1 . Genera l Flo wo f Calculation s i n th e Concept- 5 Mode l

1 ! Rea d I n Dat a Definin g Calculation s

T 2
. Retriev e Referenc e Plan t Cos t Mode l Fro m COM O Data Fil e

3
. Rea d I n Dat a Overridin g Bas e Plan t Cos t Mode l An d Definin g Year s Fo rAnalysi s O f Historica l Equipment , Labo rAn d Material s Cos t Data (Optiona l Wit h User )

4
. Retriev e Historica l Equipment , Labo rAn d Material s Cos t Dat a Fro m LAM ADat a Fil e An d Fi t Dat a

5
. Rea d I n Dat a Overridin g Calculate d Escalatio n Rate s (Optiona l Wit h User )

6
. Adjus t 3 , 4 , An d 5-Digi t Leve l Ref erenc e Plan t Cost s T o Specifie d Plan t Size , Location , Date , Over
time , An d Productivit y

7
. Rea d I n Dat a Overridin g Calculate d Cost s (Optiona l Wit h User ) 8
. Su m Al l Direc t An d Indirec t Cost s

9
. Calculat e Contingencie s

10
. Calculat e Esc a atio n Durin g Constructio n

11
. Calculat e Interes t Durin g Constructio n

12
. Su m Al l Cost s

13
. Develo p Cas h Flo wInformatio n

14
. Prin t Repor t O f Cos t Estimat e (Detai l Optiona l Wit h User )

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 3 9

### P.4 7 

# Appendi x D Concept-5 Subaccoun t Categorie s

### P.4 8 

## Appendi xD 

# Concept-5 Subaccoun t Categorie s

Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
2 0 . 201 . 202 . LAN D AN D LAN D RIGHT S LAN D AN D PRIVILEG E ACQUISITIO N RELOCATIO N

O F BUILDINGS , UTILITIES , ET C
2 1 . 211 . 211. 1 211.1 1 211.1 2 211.1 4 211.1 5 211.1 6 211.1 7 211. 4 211.4 1 211.4 2 211.4 3 211.4 5 211. 7 211.7 1 212 . 212. 1 212.1 3 212.1 4 212. 2 212.2 1 212.2 2 212.2 4 212.2 5 212.2 6 213 . 213. 1 213.1 3 213.1 4 213. 2 213.2 1 213.2 2 213.2 4 STRUCTURE S & IMPROVEMENT S YARDWORK Genera l Yardwor k Genera l cu t & fil l Roads , walk s & parkin g are a Fencin g & gate s Sanitar y

sewe r facilit y Yar ddrainag e stor

m sewer s Roadwa y & yar dlightin g Railroad s Cu t & fil l Gradin g Trac k (ballast , ties , 8 rail ) Switche s & bumper s Structure-associate dYardwor k Cu t & fil l STEA M GENERATO RBUILDIN G Buildin g Structur e Substructur e concret e Superstructur e Buildin g Service s Plumbin g & drain s Heating , ven t & ai r conditionin g Lightin g & servic e powe r Elevato r Fir e protectio nsystem TURBINE , HEATER , CONTRO L BUILDIN G Buildin g Structur e Substructur e concret e Superstructur e — - BuiIdin g Service s Plumbin g & drain s Heating , ven t & ai r conditionin g Lightin g & servic e powe r

Energ y Informatio n Administration / Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n to r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 4 3

### P.4 9

t - a.

" 

## Tabl e D1 . Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Title
218 . OTHE RSTRUCTURE S 218B . Administratio n& Servic e Buildin g 218B. 1 Buildin g structur e 218B. 2 Buildin g service s 2181 . Electrica l Switchgea r Building s 2181. 1 Buildin g structur e 2181. 2 Buildin g service s 218L . Stack/Reclai m Transfe r Towe r 218L. 1 Buildin g structur e 218L. 2 Buildin g service s 218M . Coa l Ca r Thaw She d 218M. 1 Buildin g structur e 218M. 2 Lightin g & servic e powe r 218N . Rotar y Ca r Dum

pBuildin g & Tunne l 218N. 1 Buildin g structur e 218N. 2 Buildin g service s 2180 . Coa l Breake r House 2180. 1 Buildin g structur e 2180. 2 Buildin g service s 218P . Coa l Crushe r House 218P. 1 Buildin g structur e 218P. 2 Buildin g service s 218Q . Boile r House Transfe r Towe r 218Q. 1 Buildin g structur e 218Q. 2 Buildin g service s 218R . Dea dStorag e Transfe r Tunne l 218R. 1 Buildin g structur e 218R. 2 Buildin g service s 218T . Locomotiv e Repai r Garag e 218T. 1 Buildin g structur e 218T. 2 Buildin g service s 218U . Materia l Handlin g & Servic e Buildin g 218U. 1 Buildin g structur e 218U. 2 Buildin g service s 218V . Wast e Wate r Treatmen t Buildin g 218V. 1 Wast e wate r equipmen t buildin g 218V. 2 Wast e wate r settlin g basi n 218V. 3 AP I oi l separato r 218W . Misc . Coa l Handlin g Structur e 218W. 1 Conveyo r gallerie s 218W. 2 Stacker/reclaime r 218W. 3 Coa l pil e membran e barrie r 218W. 5 Buildin g service s 218W.6 . Maintenanc e & repai r sho p 219 . STAC KSTRUCTUR E 219. 1 Structur e 219.1 1 Excavatio nwor k 219.1 3 Substructur e concret e 219.1 4 Superstructur e 219. 2 Chimne y Service s

4 4 Energy Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

### P.5 0



## Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
2 2 . 220 . 220A . 220A. 1 221 . 221. 1 221. 2 221.2 1 221.2 2 221. 3 221.3 1 221.3 3 221.3 5 221.3 6 221.3 7 222 . 222. 1 222.1 4 222. 2 222.2 2 222.2 3 222. 3 222.3 1 222. 4 222.4 1 222.4 2 222. 5 222.5 1 222.5 2 222. 6 222. 7 222.7 3 222. 8 222. 9 222.9 1 222.9 2 222.9 3 223 . 223. 1 223. 2 224 . 225 . BOILE RPLAN T EQUIPMEN T FOSSI L STEA

M SUPPL YSYSTE M Fossi l Stea

m Suppl y System Quote dFossi L Steam Suppl y Syste m Pric e STEA M GENERATIN GSYSTE M Stea m Generatin g Equipmen t Stea m Generatin g Accessor y Boile r bypas s system Boile r vent s an

d drain s Sootblowin g System Rotatin g machiner y Tank s and pressur e vessel s Pipin g Valve s Piping—misc . itern

s DRAF T SYSTE M Rotatin g Machiner y Ai r heate r drai npum p& mete r Hea t Transfe r Equipmen t Inle t combustio nai r steam coi l Combustio nai r prehea t steam coi l Tank s and Pressur e Vessel s Ai r heate r drai ntank Purificatio n& Filtratio nEquipmen t Electrostati c precipitato r Precipitato r insulatio n Pipin g & Ductwor k Ai r prehea t steam

pipin g Ductwor k Valve s Piping—Misc . Item s Specialtie s Instrumentatio n& Control s Foundations/Skid s Precipitato r & duc t foundatio n Primar y ai r & induc t fa nfoundation s Ai r heate r foundation s AS H & DUS T HANDLINGSYSTE M Fl y As hSystem Bottom As hSystem FUE L HANDLIN GSYSTEM S FLU E GA S DESULFURIZATIO N STRUCTUR E

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r FossihFue l Stea m Plant s 4 5

## P.5 1

Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )

Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
226 . DESULFURIZATIO NEQUIPMEN T 226. 1 Lim e Unloading/Storag e Facilit y 226. 2 Lim e Slurr yPreparatio n Syste m 226. 3 S0 2 Absorbe r Syste m 226. 4 Wast e Slurr yThickenin g 226. 5 Wast e Stabilizatio n Syste m 226. 6 Misc . Desulfurizatio n Equipmen t 226. 7 Instrumentatio n & Contro l 227 . INSTRUMENTATIO N& CONTRO L 227. 1 Benchboard , Panel s & Rack s 227.1 1 Boiler—Turbin e generato r contro l pane l 227.1 7 Auxiliar ypanel s & cabinet s 227.1 8 Instrumen t rack s 227.1 9 Alar m syste m 227. 2 Plan t Compute r Syste m 227. 3 . Stac k Ga s Monitorin g Syste m 227. 4 Plan t Contro l Syste m 227.4 1 Coordinate d contro l syste m 227.4 2 Burne r contro l syste m 227. 5 Instrumen t Tubin g & Fitting s 228 . BOILE R PLAN T MISC . ITEM S 228. 1 Fiel d Paintin g 228. 2 Qualificatio n o f Welder s 228. 3 Boile r Plan t Insulatio n 228. 4 Samplin g Equipmen t
2 3 . TURBIN E PLAN T EQUIPMEN T 231 . TURBIN E GENERATO R 231. 1 Turbin e Generato r & Accessorie s 231.1 1 Turbin e factor ycos t 231.1 2 Othe r turbin e cost s 231. 2 Foundation s 231.2 1 Turbin e generato r pedesta l 231. 4 Lubricatin g Oi l Syste m 231.4 3 Tank s & pressur e vessel s 231.4 5 Pipin g 231.4 6 Valve s 231.4 7 Piping—misc . item s 231.4 8 Instrumentatio n & contro l 231.4 9 Skids/foundation s 231. 5 Ga s System s 231.5 1 Hydroge n storag e syste m 231.5 2 Carbo n dioxid e storag e syste m

4 6 Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

## P.52

Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
233

- 233. 1 233.1 2 233. 2 233.2 1 233.2 3 233.2 5 233.2 6 233.2 7 233.2 8 233.2 9 233. 3 233.3 1 233. 5 234 . 234. 1 234. 2 234.2 1 234.2 5 234.2 6 234.2 7 234.2 8 234. 3 234.3 5 234.3 6 234.3 7 234.3 8 234. 4 234.4 5 234.4 6 234.4 7 234.4 8 235 . 235. 1 235.1 1 235.1 2 235.1 3 235.1 5 235. 2 235.2 1 235. 3 235.3 1 235.3 2 235.3 3 235.3 5 235.3 6 235.3 7 235.3 8 235. 4 235. 5 CONDENSIN G SYSTEM S Condense r Equipmen t Hea t transfe r equipmen t Condensat e Syste

m Rotating machinery Tank s & pressur e vessel s Piping Valve s Piping—misc . items Instrumentatio n & control s Foundation s Ga s Remova l Syste

m Condense r ga s remova L syste m Condensat e Polishing FEE D HEATIN

G SYSTE M Feedwate r Heater s Feedwate r Syste

m Rotating machiner

y Piping Valve s Piping—misc . items Instrumentatio n & contro l Extractio n Stea

mSyste m Piping Valve s Piping—misc . items Instrumentatio n & contro l Feedwate r Heate r Ven t & Drai n Syste m Piping Valve s P i p i ng—m i sc . i tern s Instrumentatio n & contro l OTHE R TURBINE PLAN

T EQUIPMEN

T Mai n Vapo r Pipin

g Syste m Mai n stea

msyste m Ho t rehea t syste

m Col d rehea t syste

m Attemperating syste m Turbin e Auxiliarie s Mai n steam/rehea t vent s & drai n Turbin e Close d Cooling Wate r Syste m Rotating machinery Hea t transfe r equipmen t Tank s & pressur e vessel s Pipin g Valve s P i p i ng—m i sc . i tern s Instrumentatio n & contro l Demineralize d Wate r Make-U p Syste m Chemica l Treatmen t Syste m

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 4 7

## P.53

v*i 

## Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e 235. 6 Neutralizatio nSystem 235.6 1 Rotatin g machiner y 235.6 3 Tank s n d pressur e vessel s 235.6 5 Pipin . 235.6 6 Valve s 235.6 7 Piping—misc . item s 235.6 8 Instrumentatio n& contro l 236 . INSTRUMENTATIO N & CONTRO L 236. 1 Proces s Instrument/Contro l Equipmen t 236.1 1 Benchboard , panel s & rack s 236. 2 Proces s Compute r 236. 3 Turbin e Plan t Instrument/Contro l Tubin g 237 . TURBIN E PLAN T MISC . ITEM S 237. 1 Misc . Suspens e Item s 237.1 2 Fiel dpaintin g 237.1 3 Qualificatio no f welder s 237. 3 Turbin e Plan t Insulatio n
2 4 . ELECTRI C PLAN T EQUIPMEN T 241 . SWITCHGEAR ' 241. 1 Generato r Equipmen t Switchgea r 241.1 2 Generato r neutra L groundin g equipmen t 241.1 3 Generato r curren t & potentia l transforme r 241. 2 Statio nServic e Switchgea r 241.2 1 Medium voltag e meta l da d 241.2 2 Statio nmoto r contro l cnt r 242 . STATIO N SERVIC E EQUIPMEN T 242. 1 Statio nServic e & Startu pTransforme r 242.1 1 Uni t auxiliar y transforme r 242.1 2 Reserv e auxiliar y transforme r 242.1 3 Foundation s fo r .transformer s 242. 2 Uni t Substation s 242.2 1 Loa dcente r switchgea r 242.2 2 Loa dcente r transformer s 242.2 3 Misc . transformer s 242. 3 Auxiliar y Powe r Source s 242.3 1 Batter y system s 242.3 2 Emergenc y diese l generato r system 242.3 4 Inverter s 243 . SWITCHBOARD S 243. 1 Contro l Panel s 243.1 1 Generato r & aux . powe r system contro l pane l 243.1 4 Generato r protectiv e relay pane l 243. 2 Auxiliar y Powe r & Signa l Board s 243.2 1 Powe r distributio npanel s 243.2 2 Batter y contro l & D

C distributio npane L

4 8 Energ

y Infonnatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

### P.5 4



## Tabl e D1 . Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
244 . 244. 1 244.1 1 244.1 2 244. 2 244. 3 244. 4 244. 5 245
. 245. 1 245.1 1 245. 2 245. 3 246 . 246. 1 246.1 1 246. 2 246.2 1 246.2 2 246. 3 246. 4 PROTECTIV E EQUIPMEN T Genera l Statio n Groun d Syste m Equipmen t groundin g syste m Yard. & structur e groundin g Fir e Detectio n & Suppressio n Lightnin g Protectio n Cathodi c Protectio n Hea t Tracin g & Freez e Protectio n ELECTRICA L STRUCTUR E & WIRIN G CONTAINNER S Undergroun d Duc t Run s Duc t bank s Cabl e Tra y Condui t POWE R & CONTRO L WIRIN G Generato r Circuit s Wirin g Mai n generato r bu s duc t Statio n Servic e Powe r Wirin g Hig h voltag e bu s & cabl e Lo wvoltag e bu s 8 cabl e Contro l Cabl e Instrumen t Wir e 

### 2 5 251 . 251. 1 251.1 1 251.1 6 251. 2 251.2 1 251. 3 251.3 4 252 . 252. 1 252.1 1 252. 2 252.2 1 252.2 2 252.2 4 252. 3 252.3 1 252.3 2 252.3 3 252.3 4 252.3 5 252.3 6 252.3 8 252.3 9 MISCELLANEOU S PLAN T EQUIPMEN T TRANSPORTATIO NS LIF T EQUIPMEN T Crane s & Hoist s Turbin e buildin g cran e Misc . cranes , hoist s & monorail s Railwa yEquipmen t Diese l locomotiv e Roadwa yEquipmen t Bulldozer s AIR , WATE R & STEAM SERVIC E SYSTE M Ai r System s Compresse d ai r syste m Wate r System s Servic e wate r syste m Fir e protectio n Potabl e wate r syste m Auxiliar yStea mSyste m Auxiliar yboile r syste m Auxiliar yboile r feedwate r syste m Auxiliar yfue l oi l syste m Auxiliar yde-aerato r & makeu p syste m Auxiliar ychemica l fee d syste m Auxiliar ystea m& condensat e retur n Auxiliar yboile r blowdow n Aux . stea msys . complet e instrumentatio n & control s

Energ y Informatio n Administration / Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 4 9

## P.55

TJ



## Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )

— Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
252. 4 Plan t Fue l Oi l Syste m 252.4 1 Rotatin g machiner y 252.4 3 Tank s an d pressur e vessel s 252.4 5 Pipin g 252.4 6 Valve s 252.4 7 Piping—misc . item s 252.4 9 Foundations/skid s 253 . COMMUNICATION S EQUIPMEN T 253. 1 Loca l Communication s Syste m .253.1 1 Genera l purpos e telephon e syste m 253.1 5 Publi c addres s & interco msyste m 253. 2 Signa l System s 253.2 1 Fir e detectio n syste m 253.2 2 Securit ysyste m 254 . FURNISHING S & FIXTURE S 254. 1 Safet yEquipmen t 254.1 1 Portabl e fir e extinguisher s 254. 2 Chemica l Laborator y& Instrumen t Sho p 254.2 2 Sho p apparatu s 254.2 3 Specia l laborator yfurnitur e & fixture s 254. 3 Offic e Equipmen t & Furnishing s 254.3 1 Offic e furnitur e 254.4 Chang e Roo m Equipmen t 254.4 1 Locker s 8 benche s 254. 5 Environmen t Monitorin g Equipmen t 254.5 2 Meteorologica l monitorin g equipmen t 254.5 3 Wate r qualit ymonitorin g 254.5 4 Therma l effluen t monito r 254.5 6 Ai r qualit ymonitorin g 254. 6 Dinin g Facilitie s 254.6 1 Cafeteri a equipmen t 255 . WAST E WATE R TREATMEN T EQUIPMEN T

2 6 - MAI NCONDENSE R HEA T REJECTIO NSYSTE M 261

- STRUCTURE S 261. 1 Makeu p Wate r Intak e & Discharg e Structur e 261.1 1 Intak e structur e 261.1 2 Discharg e structur e 261. 2 Circulatin g Wate r Pump Hous e 261.2 1 BuiIdin g structur e 261.2 2 Buildin g servic e 261. 3 Makeu p Wate r Pretreatmen t Buildin g 261.3 1 Buildin g structur e 261.3 2 Buildin g service s 261.4 Coolin g Towe r Switchgea r Buildin g 261.4 1 Bu i tding-'structur e 261.4 2 BuiIdin g service s

s o Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Uf e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s

## P.56

Tabl e D1

. Concept- 5 Subaccoun t Categorie s (Continued )
Concept- 5 Accoun t Numbe r Accoun t Titl e
262 . 262. 1 262.1 1 262.1 2 262.1 3 262.1 4 262.1 5 MECHANICA L EQUIPMEN T Hea t Rejectio n Syste m Wate r intak e equipmen t Circulatin g wate r syste m Coolin g tower s Coolin g towe r basin s Mai n coolin g towe r makeu p & blowdow n syste m

Energ y Informatio n Administration/Estimatin g th e Capita l Cost s o f Lif e Extensio n fo r Fossil-Fue l Stea m Plant s 5 1

### P.5 7