petetheend
Computer
Hi all,
I wondered if you could help me. I am currently working with a power plant engineering & constructor, designing a 300MW CCGT Power Plant, with additional duct firing taking it to 350MW.
There are currently two routes we will take for the purchase of the equipment, one is for a power equipment provider (i.e. Siemens or Alstom) to provide the equipment for the 'power island' (the GT, the HRSG, the ST and the electrical generator) and the other is for the plant constructor to design and build the plant using a byspoke component by component approach. The advantages with the latter approach certainly will be price, but also possibly schedule. The major advantage with the former approach however is the full performance guarantee 'wrap' we will get, as the power island (and the key equipment in achieving the guarantee) is from one supplier.
If we go for the latter approach, the plant performance guarantees will be capped by the individual component suppliers at around 10% of the individual purchase price of that component and it would probably mean that the indivual components will have to be tested, rather than the whole site, in order for any deficit to be identified to a particular equipment supplier (it should be noted that the 10 may even be split 50-50 with supply schedule, giving us even less performance guarantee as an LD).
I think the GT and ST should be fairly straightforward to individually test, due to ASME performance test code 22 for gas turbines and performance test code 6 & 6A for steam turbines, but does anyone know how we would test the HRSG? I am keen to know what typical performance guarantees we would impose (and what the amount of the cap should be) and how quickly the penalties should reach the cap. My final decision is, as the component approach is cheaper, how much cheaper would it need to be to not go for the approach where the power island is bought from a single OEM, which would give us a full performance guarantee wrap, with far better LD provisions?
Thanks in anticipation.
I wondered if you could help me. I am currently working with a power plant engineering & constructor, designing a 300MW CCGT Power Plant, with additional duct firing taking it to 350MW.
There are currently two routes we will take for the purchase of the equipment, one is for a power equipment provider (i.e. Siemens or Alstom) to provide the equipment for the 'power island' (the GT, the HRSG, the ST and the electrical generator) and the other is for the plant constructor to design and build the plant using a byspoke component by component approach. The advantages with the latter approach certainly will be price, but also possibly schedule. The major advantage with the former approach however is the full performance guarantee 'wrap' we will get, as the power island (and the key equipment in achieving the guarantee) is from one supplier.
If we go for the latter approach, the plant performance guarantees will be capped by the individual component suppliers at around 10% of the individual purchase price of that component and it would probably mean that the indivual components will have to be tested, rather than the whole site, in order for any deficit to be identified to a particular equipment supplier (it should be noted that the 10 may even be split 50-50 with supply schedule, giving us even less performance guarantee as an LD).
I think the GT and ST should be fairly straightforward to individually test, due to ASME performance test code 22 for gas turbines and performance test code 6 & 6A for steam turbines, but does anyone know how we would test the HRSG? I am keen to know what typical performance guarantees we would impose (and what the amount of the cap should be) and how quickly the penalties should reach the cap. My final decision is, as the component approach is cheaper, how much cheaper would it need to be to not go for the approach where the power island is bought from a single OEM, which would give us a full performance guarantee wrap, with far better LD provisions?
Thanks in anticipation.
