we were asked to study the feasibility of a 9E.03 CCGT application for a potential project in Myanmar. In short : doesnt makes sense. No redundancy and high heat rate due to limited gas volume.
2. 2
Introduction – who we are
We are an in-depend advisor focusing on the power sector and especially the gas to power sector with >50
years of power expertise. Over the years we gained experience in all aspects of energy infrastructure in
both EU as well as South East Asia. We have inhouse expertise of the design, operations and
management of Gas turbine based power plants.
40 years experience in Gas Turbine power sector of which 35 years with General Electric as Project
Manager and design engineer. 4 years Experience as Operational Director of a gas turbine O&M company
3. 3
Conclusions on the proposed DESIGN of the power plant
1. The 9E.03 CCGT plant is old, not 100% GE manufactured and too big for the Ahlone
project resulting in part load operations, higher fuel costs and maintenance
2. The 9E.03 CCGT power plant is a single train power plant with NO redundancy leading to
significant risks for EPGE and we would EPGE advise not to consider the proposed
configuration (risk of complete power outage)
3. The plant is designed for 180MW projects (at local conditions), meaning it will have to run
365days per year in part load due to limited gas quantity => high fuel costs and more
maintenance
4. The Plant considered is old >25 years and could lead to failures and more frequent
maintenance (read power outage)
5. The plant will need significant piling and cooling water operations . The construction of the
plant is >12 months
4. 4
Conclusions on the HEAT RATE of the power plant
1. The net plant average heat rate of this plant is not competitive ( >10,000 BTU/kWh)
2. The proposed train could theoretically generate approximately 167MW but in that case will
consume >36mmscfd in full load (44mmscfd)
3. With the limited gas available and the gas quality (721BTU) the proposed plant will have to
run part load (<78%) generating <125MW net during the DRY season resulting in relative
high heat rate (8,783 BTU/kWh)
4. During the WET season the load will need to decreased significantly to <40% of the design
capacity resulting in extreme high heat rates (11,336 BTU/kWh)
5. The average heat rate calculated based on 7 months WET and 5 months DRY season
is 10,273BTU/kWh and thus fuel costs > 7.5ct/kWh
5. 5
GE information as starting point for our evaluation
1. We have used GE numbers (ISO and NEW) CCGT 9E.03 output and heat rate.
2. These numbers have been corrected based on GE curves for heat rate and output (see
Appendix)
a) Ambient conditions T (Myanmar) > ISO
b) Load Factor (plant is never running full load)
Besides we have applied a very conservative 2% correction for the fact that the power plant is >25 years old and
not 100% GE manufactured.
6. 6
DESIGN CASE DRY SEASON WET SEASON
44 MMSCFD 36MMSCFD 50%
SIMPLE CYCLE (Reference GE 9E.03) @ ISO CONDITIONS & NEW 132 103 51
SC Output Correction Ambient Temperature (REF. CORRECTION CURVE) 12% 12% 12%
SC Output correction Year of Construction (1991!! And Chinese not 100% GE) 2% 2% 2%
ISO SC Heat Rate at Generator Terminals (REFERENCE GE 9E.03 AT ISO AND NEW) 9860 9860 9860
SC Heat rate coprrection local ambient temperature (GE CURVE) 4% 4% 4%
SC Heat rate coprrection AGE of GTG 2% 2% 2%
SC Heat Rate correction due to part load (Reference GE Curve) 0% 5% 40%
Calculated SC Generator terminals Output MW after corrections 113.52 88.58 43.86
Gas Turbine Load 100% 78% 39%
Calculated SC LHV Heat Rate at Generator Terminals after corrections 10451.6 10944.6 14395.6
Calculated SC efficiency at Generator Terminals 32.7% 31.2% 23.7%
Calculated Thermal input (SC Output / Efficiency) 348 284 185
Steam Turbine output at ISO (GE REFERENCE) 72 na na
Combined Cycle Total Output at ISO Conditions CCGT (GE Reference) 204 na na
Calculated Steam Turbine Output after corrections 62 40 20
Calculated Gross Plant Output at Terminals 175.4 128.6 63.9
Own Consumption 4% 4% 4%
Own Consumption in MW (cooling tower, pumps , compressors?) 7 5 3
Losses Transformer etc 1% 1% 1%
Calculated Net Plan Output after corrections 167.2 122.5 60.8
Calculated Net plant Output Efficiency local conditions 48.10% 43.14% 32.90%
Calculated Net Plant heat rate LHV 7098 7913 10377
Calculated Net Plant Heat rate HHV 7808 8705 11415
FUEL
Calculate3d Gas Consumption 1,305 1,066 695
Calculated Gas Consumption (721BTU/scf) 43 35.5 23
Calculations Design Case, 36mmscfd case (Dry) and Wet season case
BTU/kWh HHV Period
Heat Rate Dry 8783 5
Heat Rate Wet 11336 7
Average 10273 12
1
1
Notes:
1. See Appendix I
2. See Appendix II
3. See Appendix III
1
2
2
3 3
9. 9
Appendix II
GE Curves Output and Heat Rate for Ambient Temperature
Output correction: 12%
Heat rate correction : 4%
10. 10
Appendix III
GT Heat Rate as a function of GTG load (80% load and 40% load case)
Heat Rate multiplier (80% load : 1.05
x ISO Heat Rate
Heat Rate multiplier (40% load): 1.40
x ISO heat rate
