Pre-Christmas Sale on all Power Plant Project Finance Models

November 16th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in project finance models

Pre-Christmas Sale on all Power Plant Project Finance Models

Yes, you are right.

Your energy technology selection and financial modeling expert is offering all our global clients a pre-Christmas (November 1-30, 2017) sale of USD200 on all project finance models for conventional, fossil, nuclear, renewable, energy storage and waste heat recovery systems.

To avail of the pre-Christmas sale, just email me at:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Once I receive your email request and identify the model you need, then make payments thru PayPal using my account:

=====

energydataexpert@gmail.com

=====

or via bank/wire transfer to my current account:

=====

1) Name of Bank Branch & Address:

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)

Pasig Ortigas Branch

G/F Benpres Building, Exchange Road corner Meralco Avenue

Ortigas Center, PASIG CITY 1605

METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES

2) Account Name:

Marcial T. Ocampo

3) Account Number:

Current Account = 0205-5062-41

4) SWIFT ID Number = BOPIPHMM

=====

You need to specify the local currency you want, aside from the standard USD currency model, so the tariff calculations will be in your own local currency.

A list of the demo models for the actual models for sale at USD 200 is shown below.

=====

PROJECT FINANCE MODELS (in Philippine Currency)

Try the models below in Philippine Currency (other currencies are available such as USD, EUR, GBP, CNY, THB, MYR, IDR, INR, etc.).

Group 1 – Renewable Energy Technologies:

ADV Biomass Cogeneration Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass Direct Combustion Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass Gasification Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass IGCC Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass WTE Model3 – demo5b

ADV Biomass WTE Model3 – pyrolysis – demo5b

ADV Mini-Hydro Model3 – demo5b

ADV Ocean Thermal Model3_10 MW – demo5b

ADV Ocean Thermal Model3_50 MW – demo5b

ADV Tidal Current Model3_30 MW (PHP) – demo5b

ADV Solar PV 1 mw Model3 – demo5b

ADV Solar PV 25 mw Model3 – demo5b

ADV Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) Model3 – demo5b

ADV Wind Offshore Model3 – demo5b

ADV Wind Onshore Model3 – demo5b

Group 2 – Clean Coal Technologies:

ADV Coal-Fired CFB Thermal Model3_50 MW – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired CFB Thermal Model3_135 MW – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired PC Subcritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired PC Supercritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Coal-Fired PC Ultrasupercritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

Group 3 – Conventional & Fossil & Nuclear Technologies:

ADV Diesel Genset Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Genset Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Geo Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Large Hydro Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Combined Cycle Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Simple Cycle Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Petcoke-Fired PC Subcritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Nuclear PHWR Model3 – demo5b

Group 4 – Combined Heat & Power (CHP) and Waste Heat Recovery (WHR) Systems:

ADV Coal-Fired CFB Thermal Model3_50 MW CHP – demo5b

ADV Diesel Genset and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Genset and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Gasoline Genset and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Propane Simple Cycle and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

ADV Simple Cycle and Waste Heat Boiler Model3 – demo5b

=====

 

An Integrated Strategy for Asset Valuation and Disposal of Surplus and Redundant Power Generation Equipment

An Integrated Strategy for Asset Valuation and Disposal of Surplus and Redundant Power Generation Equipment

Mike Craigie

Managing Director

Craigie Engineering Sales & Services Ltd.

SYNOPSIS

This paper outlines the recommended strategy for the valuation, marketing and disposal of surplus power plant.

In addition to assessing the overall extent and varied sources of such available equipment, the paper also looks closely at the various options which a utility can adopt when disposing of such plant, and also looks at the merits and potential difficulties to be considered when investigating the feasibility of adopting all or part of such equipment or plant into a new power project development.

A preliminary equipment/asset valuation guide is also included for discussion. The paper also takes a look at the industry’s changing attitude to the use of such plants, from the point of view of clients, OEM’s, owners and asset disposal managers.

SURPLUS EQUIPMENT:

The availability of ‘surplus’, canceled order, or ‘advanced order’ equipment at attractive cost and immediate delivery, is a worldwide phenomenon which has surprisingly few restrictions on capacity.

From our experiences over the past 20 years or so (while investigating the availability of such equipment), it is rare in fact to enter into discussions with any OEM, utility, major oil company, or large industrial group, and not find someone who does not have, or has had, ‘surplus’ unused equipment available from some project which was canceled, frustrated, or built ‘on spec’ and never found a buyer.

The term “surplus” equipment is most frequently used to avoid the pre-conceptions of some clients (and OEM’s) that what we are offering is basically someone else’s scrap:

Traditionally, up until the past few years at least, most of the leading manufacturers (OEM’s) would only consider offering refurbished equipment of their own manufacture, and even then only when their client could not afford the capital cost of new plant, or they could not convince the client that new equipment was a better option.

Most manufacturers have now dramatically changed their attitude to surplus equipment, with many more OEM’s now even purchasing, refurbishing and selling/renting other OEM’s equipment.  This trend is witnessed by GE’s strategic acquisition of GTS (Greenwich Turbine Services) and UNC-Metcalf, and Stewart & Stevenson (with Pratt & Whitney, Rolls Royce, Solar and now EGT/Ruston overhaul experience/capabilities).

Having now seen the successful implementation of several projects using surplus equipment, even the hardest of attitudes among clients (e.g. in the oil industry and with IPP developers) has changed remarkably and the general market perception is a move toward recycling and re-use wherever possible/practicable.

SURPLUS EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY

The reasons for such equipment becoming available are varied:

  1. Political or Environmental:
  1. The 2 x 350MW oil-fired units from the ‘Shimaal’ project which were canceled due to Iraq’s excursion into Kuwait.
  2. Many aborted nuclear plants in Germany, Italy, Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc.
  3. 300MW CCGT Power Barges for Pakistan cancelled by new government.
  4. 2 x 110MW hydro/pumped storage plants for Northern Ireland cancelled due to security concerns for the site.
  5. 8 x 1250MW nuclear plant cancelled by TVA/US Government in mid 1980’s

Total estimate:                    20,000MW

  1. Availability of Fuel/Grid Constraints:
  1. The 4 x 660MW coal-fired units canceled by ENEL when their government made a policy decision not to increase the country’s dependence on imported coal.
  2. The 2 x 300MW units in Northern Ireland which have been unused due to their oil-fired design and reduced electrical demand.
  3. The 2 x Frame 9E gas turbines from cancelled re-powering project.
  4. 2 X 9MW diesels built as speculative/’back door’ IPP, with no PPA (Power Purchase Agreement).
  5. 2 x 150MW V94.2 gas turbines which can’t be run due to severe grid constraints.
  6. Several CCGT plants in India (6FA and 9FA) which do not have access to gas

Total estimate:                    20,000MW

  1. Overestimated Load Growth or Demand:
  2. 250MW Marsden B oil-fired power plant in New Zealand, mothballed since 1980.
  3. The 5 x 100MW coal-fired units in RSA which have seen little use due to large nuclear plant and larger coal-fired units running on base load.
  4. Many similar large coal and orimulsion power plants in UK now available as not competitive (under power bid process) with nuclear and cogen/CCGT plants.
  5. The 25MW backpressure steam turbine generator in Eastern Europe never installed due to cheaper power coming on line from adjacent large coal-fired station.
  6. The 400MW coal-fired unit at Salt River in USA on which construction was terminated due to reduced load growth.
  7. The 230MW combined cycle/cogen plant in Wisconsin which was cancelled by WEPCO when their load growth was covered by alternative power sources.
  8. Many thousands of MW of CCGT and open cycle GT plants in Italy, UK, Netherlands, Germany, etc which are now redundant due to reduces energy consumption and move to wind energy.

Total Estimate:   30,000MW

  1. Industrial/IPP’s with Financial Problems
  2. The 3 x 4 MW Centaur gas turbines in chp/cogen application for ceramics factory in Indonesia,
  3. 6FA cogen/CCGT extraction unit in Italy which had steam to paper mill which has now shut down.
  4. 64 MW condensing turbine generator in Eastern Europe from canceled project.
  5. 4 x 12 MW HFO-fired diesel engines from cancelled shipbuilding project
  6. Many paper mill cogeneration applications in UK, Finland, France, Italy, which shut down due to paper mills not being competitive with Far East

Total Estimate:   10,000MW

ADVANTAGES OF SURPLUS PLANT

Availability / Delivery:

This is not only a major factor favoring the use of cancelled-order, advance-order and unused equipment, but in many cases the available used equipment may already be overhauled or removed into storage ready for overhaul and rapid delivery, well in advance of corresponding delivery schedules for equivalent new equipment.

Cost / Economics:

The greatest advantage of utilizing ‘surplus’ equipment is of course usually the capital cost, but this option can not only be most financially advantageous, but also means that the equipment can be commissioned and ‘on line’ generating power (and steam/heat) within a very short period of time, leading to considerable savings in a number of areas:

  1. Construction cost is reduced due to lower overheads during the shorter period,
  2. Interest during construction (IDC) is reduced in direct proportion, and
  3. The developing company’s overheads in an IPP situation are also minimized to the extent that “up-front” profit can be increased by inflating the cost of the installed plant in line with the maximum installed cost which will satisfy the lead financing agency.
  4. In addition to these is the considerable benefit of early revenue.

For example, if one was to place an order on a 4MW cogen plant and wait 12 months for delivery with 6 months to deliver and install, a client purchasing a similar surplus unit with foundation designs and wiring diagrams modified easily to suit their site conditions could have the unit installed and commissioned in 3 – 4 months.

During this advantageous 14 month difference, that same plant could generate power alone worth over US$ 1 Million, (excluding the extra profit from steam sales) at 2.5 cents/kWh, and this is only a 4 Mw plant.

Imagine then the comparative savings in having a 300MW CCGT plant on line 14 months or more ahead of schedule. (US$ 75 Million in earned revenue using the same 2.5 cents/kWh)

Note:  Most modern turbine packages (e.g. Frame 6, Taurus or W251) are either 50 or 60 Hz machines with only a gearbox alteration required.  In fact the 60 Hz alternators at 13,800 V (1800 or 3600 RPM) are the same as used in the 50 Hz machines and re-adjusted on the voltage regulators to give 11,000 V at the relevant 50 Hz speeds (1500 or 3000 RPM)

Retained Equity

The other significant, and possibly the most important feature of utilizing such immediately available and ‘surplus equipment’ is that the owners will often be willing to retain part equity in any viable IPP development, thereby making overall project finance more accessible.

It is of course more attractive from their point of view to take a steady return on a retained equity/investment on the plant over several years, rather than continue to absorb the often substantial costs of storing the completed equipment at the OEM’s (original equipment manufacturers) factory and see its residual or resale value diminish at an even more alarming rate.

Valuation of the available plant:

At this stage it may be worth making a brief study of the likely cost or value of such surplus equipment. – Refer to Graph A

Firstly, let’s look at a typical depreciation in any type of power plant (diesel, gas or steam turbine) and the value of regular major overhauls and “zero hour” overhauls – Graph A.

Secondly, if we make the assumption (as most accountants would do) that straight-line depreciation of power plant takes place over 10, 15 or even 25 years.

From our own past experience and our ongoing involvement in the valuation, marketing, and sourcing of suitable surplus equipment, we have found it best (i.e. closest match), in the case of gas turbines particularly, to assume the designed 20 year life span of the equipment.

“Negative Equity” – Refer to Graph B

Obviously, the recent and substantial reductions in the delivered cost of new equipment have had a significant impact on the inherent value of both used and unused power plant. (e.g. Frame 6 units sold for US$ 10-11 Million 7-8 years ago, then dropped to US$ 7-8 M with over-supply 3-4 years ago, and now are listed (GTW Handbook 2001-2) at around US$ 13 Million.

This has given rise to the most unlikely scenario about 4 years ago, where the equipment value (in book terms), which an owner believed his equipment was worth, was substantially more than the real cost of similar/identical replacement units.

Aero-derivative Gas Turbines – Graph C

With this in mind we would note the anticipated selling price (FOB) for a 15 year old Centaur T4000, in operating condition, with basic/operational spare parts and full maintenance history, recent overhaul, and all ancillary equipment (coolers, inlet/exhaust, etc.), of around US$ 550,000.

Industrial Gas Turbines – Refer to Graph D

Here we have chosen to highlight the estimated cost for a 10 year old GE Frame 6 (38 Mw), again delivered FOB, with operational spares, auxiliaries, recent overhaul, and full maintenance history, at around US$ 6.5 M.

Proven Reliability/Availability

With most equipment, which has already been installed and operated, a full maintenance and operational history is usually available.

Technical Service Bulletins will also be available, highlighting the changes in maintenance and operating procedures, which have been recommended over the years for best performance; based on operating experiences within not only the existing plant but all other similar plants worldwide.  User symposiums will also have identified specific areas for concern and a wealth of historical documentation can usually be easily accessed.

Insurability

New equipment manufacturers (OEM’s) continue to drive forward at a relentless pace to achieve that extra 0.5% increased efficiency and/or that 1% reduction in emissions, which also employing new combustion techniques, such as dry low NOx combustion.

These efforts often lead to reduced flame instability and less margin for error in T1 and T2 temperatures, giving cause for concern, particularly now by the insurers of such plants.

Overhaul & Maintenance Facilities/Support:

Another major benefit of surplus equipment, which has been installed within the market for several years, is that there will be many sources of supply, not only for spare parts and overhaul but also for upgrade and experienced Operation & Maintenance (O & M) contractors.

There will also usually be a wealth of supporting services available for replacement blades, coatings, upgrade/replacement of control systems, vibration monitoring equipment, etc.

Valuation & Disposal Strategy

We typically recommend that surplus plant owners give themselves the maximum period of marketing prior to final decommissioning or dismantling. This then gives them a longer and more realistic period of finding the ‘right buyer with the appropriate project application.

With most owners preferring to sell such plant on an as-is, where-is basis, the frequently onerous cost of decommissioning and dismantling can be avoided, as this would then typically be borne by the purchaser, further saving the owner substantial costs.

Prior to entering into the marketing phase the most important criteria for successful disposal is to set realistic and attainable recovery/selling prices which match other surplus and new equipment in terms of price, scope and availability, with reasonable balancing of residual and elapsed lifetime. Allowance has also to be made for performance, spare part availability, terms of purchase, location and accessibility of site, etc.

Many brokers or marketing agents will attempt to secure lucrative contracts, which often require burdensome provision of project and on-site managers, advertising costs, with little or no margin for success-based incentives.

CESS usually recommend, and prefer to enter into, contracts which allow recovery of some or all of the hard costs, but with all of the profit-based elements of the contract linked directly to the success in finding the right end-user, willing to purchase at the best terms and highest recoverable cost to the owner.

Summary & Conclusions:

Unused and used but serviceable or overhauled power plants are available from the smaller 1 – 2MW gas and steam turbine units, right up to 1200MW, and the availability of such equipment is rarely a reflection of the lack of demand or unsuitability of the equipment, but can more commonly be linked to a lack of market knowledge of what is available.

 

How do we stabilize the grid with higher penetration of renewables?

November 3rd, 2017 No Comments   Posted in Energy Supply

How Do We Stabilize The Grid With Higher Penetration Of Renewables?

Chris James

The energy industry is in the process of understanding the full scope of renewable energy on the grid.

As more renewables are added onto the grid, the stability of the grid is generally decreasing. This is because the continuously rotating mass connected to the grid (turbines and generators on the production end) inherently stabilizes grid frequency. When those systems are taken offline and replaced by renewable energy systems, frequency stabilization becomes an increasing challenge.

Coal-fired power plants and gas turbines are examples. These systems have a lot of mass, and when they are rotating, they store energy. In the past, these systems have been beneficial for the grid because they rotate continuously and are difficult to slow down. If a large load makes a demand on the grid, say an industrial plant turns on a large device that pulls a lot of power, it still takes time to slow down these big machines so they may be able to, at least for short periods of time, source extra power into the grid.

This presents a challenge with clean alternatives. Normally, a solar panel system can’t generate more than what it’s already producing; the system is designed to always run at its maximum capacity. Wind turbines are similar. It would seem that there’s a lot of rotating mass in a wind turbine, but compared to a fast, massive traditional turbine, the wind turbine rotates slowly and doesn’t actually have that much energy in its rotating mass. Also, the clean energy systems being interconnected to the grid must synchronize with the existing grid frequency rather than drive the grid frequency. If you draw a lot of power for a short period of time, or overload the grid, the grid frequency starts lowering, and current clean energy systems can’t compensate for that. This is where ultracapacitors, also called supercapacitors, can be implemented to help compensate for high power transient loads.

The majority of events which destabilize the grid are fairly short. Studies have shown that a majority of grid disruptions are less than a few seconds long. That’s an indicator that destabilization events that are happening on the grid can be stabilized with ultracapacitors, which specialize in short-term, very high power, lower energy content storage.

If one measures the grid frequency very precisely, an ultracapacitor paired with a very large power inverter could push power back into the grid or pull power depending on the grid frequency swings, creating a “virtual rotating mass.” It also may be that a centralized approach will be used where operation centers for the grid dispatch energy storage as needed for stabilization.

The grid is made up of different segments, and there are some that locally have an abundance of power and some need power to be sourced from afar, as power has to be provided where the loads are. In some cases, centralized operation centers may best be able to deal with a power deficit or overabundance by commanding storage systems to come online to compensate for a grid event. On the other hand, since some control decisions have to happen very quickly to be effective, some storage systems may run themselves by self-monitoring a grid segment and reacting to changes. It’s likely that ultracapacitor-based stabilization systems will need to be autonomous like this, because they must react very fast to be effective. I imagine we will need to employ a variety of energy storage systems to meet our needs. This is a new area for the industry, so different approaches are still under exploration.

The traditional grid is self-stabilizing to a high degree. As clean energy sources that are variable continue to be added to the grid, it will be necessary to provide additional stabilization such as adding large-scale energy storage. It’s general industry knowledge that the lowest cost energy storage available is pumped hydroelectric storage. One problem with pumped hydroelectric storage is it can’t be turned on and off immediately. Time is required for spinning up/down these systems, and it seems that they also will need to be coupled with some sort of rapid stabilization.

Let’s say you’re using energy flowing directly from the wind and sun, and the turbines are off. What happens when you have another load? You will have to spin your turbines up. You need a short-term energy storage to ride through the increase in demand while you bring up the sources. It may be that you have battery systems that can achieve that. I think that ultracapacitors are poised to serve this application best in the long-term: If your lowest cost energy storage system doesn’t always source energy immediately, then you need something to bridge the gap, and ultracapacitors are in a good position to do just that.

The grid stability problem is going to stick around. It’s possible that the grid will need large ultracapacitor farms or other means to stabilize it. If stabilizing a grid fed by renewables is the goal, microcycling batteries may prove inefficient. Ultracapacitors, on the other hand, are designed for high cycle applications that require long life and are a viable option for stabilizing a renewables grid. I believe ultracapacitors will provide a very effective buffering solution as we increase the amount of clean energy technology that we employ.

This post was originally published by Maxwell Technologies and was reposted with permission.

 

How to develop a consistent lotto winning strategy – trapping and wheeling

November 1st, 2017 No Comments   Posted in lotto winning strategy

How to develop a consistent lotto winning strategy – trapping and wheeling

To download the complete article below with the tables, please click the link below:

How to develop a consistent lotto winning strategy

The fundamental formula for gambling (FFG) provides the number of consecutive draws needed to repeat an outcome, and thus predict when an event will repeat at a given confidence level. For the lotto games played in the Philippines where 6 numbered lotto balls are picked by a lotto drawing machine, the number of consecutive draws (N) at 95% confidence level is shown below:

N = log (1 – DC) / log (1 – p)

The result is then rounded upwards (Nr) by adding 0.5 and rounded-off to zero decimal point to have a whole integer number:

The number of consecutive draws to monitor when a lotto number is expected to come out is shown below:

FUNDAMENTAL FORMULA OF GAMBLING (FFG)
N = log(1 – DC)/log(1 – p)
DC 6/42 6/45 6/49 6/55 6/58 Number
Draws 0.1429 0.1333 0.1224 0.1091 0.1034 of Wins
50% 5 5 6 7 7 3.00
67% 8 8 9 10 11 4.00
75% 9 10 11 13 13 4.50
83% 12 13 14 16 17 5.00
90% 15 17 18 20 22 5.40
93% 18 19 21 24 25 5.58
95% 20 21 23 26 28 5.70

 

The next step is to get the historical draws and count the number of times the lotto number came out and divide this historical appearances with the N values above.

This will give the expected draws the lotto number will come out in the consecutive Nr draws. And you know what, the resulting expected draws is 3.0 draws for all lotto games (6/42, 6/45, 6/49, 6/55, and 6/58) after having 20, 21, 23, 26, and 28 consecutive draws for the lotto games, respectively.

By dividing the total historical draws for the lotto game by the number of jackpot wins to-date, this ratio provides the frequency of a lotto wins:

6/42 = 1508 draws / 423 jackpot wins = 3.6 draws between jackpot wins

6/45 = 2473 draws / 502 jackpot wins = 4.9 draws between jackpot wins

6/49 = 2063 draws / 301 jackpot wins = 6.9 draws between jackpot wins

6/55 = 1176 draws / 70 jackpot wins = 16.8 draws between jackpot wins

6/58 = 309 draws / 10 jackpot wins = 30.9 draws between jackpot wins

From the above draws needed to have a jackpot hit, it shows that 6/42, 6/45 and 6/49 have the shortest interval between jackpot hits while 6/55 and 6/58 have much longer intervals between jackpot hits, thought their jackpot winning price are much higher at 6M, 9M, 16M, 30M and 50M, respectively.

Also, it can be noted that most jackpot hits have drawn numbers between 1 and 31 – the calendar days in one month. This shows that the betting population in the Philippines use divine prayers that the birthdays of their family and love ones will give them luck. When the lotto draw results in low numbers between 1 and 31, and with a lot of bettors using the birthdays to select their bets, the chance of those bets hitting the draw results is indeed high.

The following data shows the number of draws with numbers between 1 and 31:

6/42 = 1508 draws / 223 jackpot wins = 6.8 draws between jackpot wins

6/45 = 2473 draws / 248 jackpot wins = 10.0 draws between jackpot wins

6/49 = 2063 draws / 118 jackpot wins = 17.5 draws between jackpot wins

6/55 = 1176 draws / 36 jackpot wins = 32.7 draws between jackpot wins

6/58 = 309 draws / 8 jackpot wins = 38.6 draws between jackpot wins

When monitoring the number of consecutive draws N and comparing with the number of actual hits within the range of N, this will provide which numbers is most likely to emerge in the next draw.

In the case of 6/42 lotto game, lotto numbers with 1-3 appearance within N = 20 prior draws have 3.5, 1.7, 0.6 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

0 0 0 0.0
1 3363 59 3.5
2 1656 29 1.7
3 532 9 0.6
4 122 2 0.1
5 10 0
6 2 0
7 0 0
5685 100 5.9

In the case of 6/45 lotto game, lotto numbers with 1-3 appearance within N = 21 prior draws have 3.2, 1.6, 0.6 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

0 769 8 0.5
1 5274 54 3.2
2 2605 27 1.6
3 900 9 0.6
4 169 2 0.1
5 26 0
6 0 0
7 0 0
9743 100 5.9

 

In the case of 6/49 lotto game, lotto numbers with 0-3 appearance within N = 23 prior draws have 0.5, 3.3, 1.6, 0.5 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

0 607 8 0.5
1 4388 55 3.3
2 2156 27 1.6
3 720 9 0.5
4 149 2
5 22 0
6 1 0
7 0 0
8043 100 5.9

In the case of 6/55 lotto game, lotto numbers with 1-3 appearance within N = 26 prior draws have 0.5, 3.3, 1.6, 0.6 for a total of 5.9 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

0 353 8 0.5
1 2470 54 3.3
2 1203 26 1.6
3 428 9 0.6
4 78 2 0.1
5 9 0
6 1 0
7 0 0
4542 100 5.9

In the case of 6/58 lotto game, lotto numbers with 0-3 appearance within N = 28 prior draws have 0.4, 3.3, 1.6, 0.5 for a total of 6.0 hits out of 6 winning lotto numbers, thus giving a higher chance of having 3, 4 and 5 winning numbers, and ultimately 6 winning jackpot numbers.

0 79 7 0.4
1 625 56 3.3
2 298 27 1.6
3 93 8 0.5
4 25 2 0.1
5 1 0
6 0 0
7
1121 100 6.0

Aside from tracking the appearance within the N prior draws, it is important to observe that the total of the 6 numbers lie within a desired range based on historical performance and that there is a good balance or spread among odd (1, 3, 5, …) and even (2, 4, 6, …) lotto numbers and also low (1-21) and high (22-42) lotto numbers in the case of 6/42 lotto game. For other lotto games, the mid-point between 1 and 45, 1 and 49, 1 and 55 and 1 and 58 determines the low and high lotto numbers.

The desired sum of the 6 lotto numbers that constitute 80% of the winning draws are as follows:

Lotto Min Ave Max
6/42 100 129 158
6/45 106 138 170
6/49 115 150 185
6/55 129 168 207
6/58 136 177 218

Finally, once you have trapped or selected the numbers using the above criteria of number of appearance in N prior draws, total historical hits of that number since the start of the lotto game, the sum of the 6 lotto numbers selected, and the balance between odd and even and low and high lotto numbers, the next step is to use lotto wheels that are available in the internet that are free or available for sale.

Among the most popular lotto wheels are:

12 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

18 Numbers In 42 Combinations

22 Numbers In 67 Combinations

8 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

8 Number Plan – Guaranteed 5/5

9 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

10 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4

10 Number Plan

20 Number Plan – Guaranteed 3/6

However, based on experience and cost effectiveness (expected winnings from hitting 3, 4, 5 and 6 numbers divided by cost of the lotto tickets), the most cost-effective wheeling strategy is the “12 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4” which is a scaled down and cheaper version of betting “System 12”.

An example of the “12 Number Plan – Guaranteed 4/4” wheel is shown below:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
11 30 23 28 36 9 5 8 24 25 38 42
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1
11 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 1 1 1 1 1 1
16 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 1 1
18 1 1 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1
21 1 1 1 1 1 1
22 1 1 1 1 1 1
23 1 1 1 1 1 1
24 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1
26 1 1 1 1 1 1
27 1 1 1 1 1 1
28 1 1 1 1 1 1
29 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 1 1 1 1 1 1
31 1 1 1 1 1 1
32 1 1 1 1 1 1
33 1 1 1 1 1 1
34 1 1 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1 1 1
36 1 1 1 1 1 1
37 1 1 1 1 1 1
38 1 1 1 1 1 1
39 1 1 1 1 1 1
40 1 1 1 1 1 1
41 1 1 1 1 1 1
42 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.50 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

And the tickets to be purchased are shown below with suggestion as to whether to bet based on the total of the 6 numbers and the balance of odd and even and low and high lotto numbers:

1 2 3 4 5 6 sum O E L H Bet
11 23 36 5 25 42 142 4 2 4 2 1
1 11 30 23 28 36 9 137 3 3 4 2 1
2 11 30 23 5 8 25 102 4 2 3 3 1
3 11 30 23 24 38 42 168 2 4 5 1 0
4 11 30 28 5 8 24 106 2 4 3 3 1
5 11 30 28 25 38 42 174 2 4 5 1 0
6 11 30 36 5 8 38 128 2 4 3 3 1
7 11 30 36 24 25 42 168 2 4 5 1 0
8 11 30 9 5 8 42 105 3 3 2 4 1
9 11 30 9 24 25 38 137 3 3 4 2 1
10 11 23 28 5 38 42 147 3 3 4 2 1
11 11 23 28 8 24 25 119 3 3 4 2 1
12 11 23 36 5 24 42 141 3 3 4 2 1
13 11 23 36 8 25 38 141 3 3 4 2 1
14 11 23 9 5 24 25 97 5 1 3 3 0
15 11 23 9 8 25 42 118 4 2 3 3 1
16 11 28 36 5 25 42 147 3 3 4 2 1
17 11 28 36 8 24 38 145 1 5 4 2 0
18 11 28 9 5 25 38 116 4 2 3 3 1
19 11 28 9 8 24 42 122 2 4 3 3 1
20 11 36 9 5 24 25 110 4 2 3 3 1
21 11 36 9 8 38 42 144 2 4 3 3 1
22 30 23 28 5 24 25 135 3 3 5 1 0
23 30 23 28 8 38 42 169 1 5 5 1 0
24 30 23 36 5 25 38 157 3 3 5 1 0
25 30 23 36 8 24 42 163 1 5 5 1 0
26 30 23 9 5 25 38 130 4 2 4 2 1
27 30 23 9 8 24 38 132 2 4 4 2 1
28 30 28 36 5 24 38 161 1 5 5 1 0
29 30 28 36 8 25 42 169 1 5 5 1 0
30 30 28 9 5 24 42 138 2 4 4 2 1
31 30 28 9 8 25 38 138 2 4 4 2 1
32 30 36 9 5 38 42 160 2 4 4 2 0
33 30 36 9 8 24 25 132 2 4 4 2 1
34 23 28 36 5 8 42 142 2 4 4 2 1
35 23 28 36 24 25 38 174 2 4 6 0 0
36 23 28 9 5 8 38 111 3 3 3 3 1
37 23 28 9 24 25 42 151 3 3 5 1 0
38 23 36 9 5 8 24 105 3 3 3 3 1
39 23 36 9 25 38 42 173 3 3 5 1 0
40 28 36 9 5 8 25 111 3 3 3 3 1
41 28 36 9 24 38 42 177 1 5 5 1 0
42 5 8 24 25 38 42 142 2 4 4 2 1
0.50 840 27
14.3% 540

And the expected winnings if the tickets hit 3, 4, 5 and 6 numbers are shown below:

    1 2 3 4 5 6
  Bet Hits 0 0 20 1,000 25,000 6,000,000
1 1 3 1
2 1 4 1
3 0 3 1
4 1 2 1
5 0 3 1
6 1 3 1
7 0 4 1
8 1 3 1
9 1 2 1
10 1 4 1
11 1 3 1
12 1 5 1
13 1 4 1
14 0 4 1
15 1 4 1
16 1 5 1
17 0 2 1
18 1 3 1
19 1 2 1
20 1 4 1
21 1 3 1
22 0 3 1
23 0 2 1
24 0 4 1
25 0 3 1
26 1 3 1
27 1 1 1
28 0 2 1
29 0 3 1
30 1 2 1
31 1 1 1
32 0 3 1
33 1 2 1
34 1 4 1
35 0 3 1
36 1 2 1
37 0 3 1
38 1 3 1
39 0 4 1
40 1 3 1
41 0 2 1
42 1 3 1
27 2 10 18 10 2 0 Wins
540 0 0 360 10,000 50,000 0 60,360
Cost
840
W / C Ratio
71.86

The above strategy of trapping the numbers from their appearance in N prior draws, historical hits, total of the 6 numbers and balance between odd and even and low and high numbers (to remove extreme and unlikely combinations) results in a cost-effective betting strategy that allows you to have a higher chance of hitting 3, 4, 5 and 6 numbers with the least cost as unlikely combinations are eliminated to avoid un-necessary costs.

Good Luck to You.

If you need the Excel Lotto Model with the Historical Hits of 6/42, 6/45, 6/49, 6/55 and 6/58 lotto games in the Philippines, as well the statistical analysis of total hits, appearances in N prior draws, trapping of the probable lotto numbers to bet on, and the lotto wheel to come up with the lotto tickets to prepare and bet, cleaned up for unlikely combinations, please email me:

mars_ocampo@yahoo.com

or

energydataexpert@gmail.com

A cash donation of PhP2,000 for each lotto game (6/42, 6/45, 6/49, 6/55 and 6/58) for a total of PhP10,000 for all Philippine lotto games is highly appreciated.

You may pay via PayPal:

=====

energydataexpert@gmail.com

=====

or remit payment via bank/wire transfer:

=====

1) Name of Bank Branch & Address:

The Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI)

Pasig Ortigas Branch

G/F Benpres Building, Exchange Road corner Meralco Avenue

Ortigas Center, PASIG CITY 1605

METRO MANILA, PHILIPPINES

2) Account Name:

Marcial T. Ocampo

3) Account Number:

Current Account = 0205-5062-41

4) SWIFT ID Number = BOPIPHMM

=====

For other countries and territories, I can customize a system that includes all of the above features (database on historical draws, statistical analysis, macros for predicting probable numbers to bet – trapping, then wheeling the numbers to bet and applying criteria to remove extreme combinations and reduce cost, email me again and let us discuss your specific needs so I can prepare a job cost estimate.

Great and Let Us Start Winning

The Lotto Expert

63-915-6067949 (GLOBE Mobile)

 

The Thematic Resume/CV of Marcial Ocampo – the Energy Technology Expert

October 30th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in energy expert

The Thematic Resume/CV of Marcial Ocampo – the Energy Technology Expert

To download the thematic resume/CV of Marcial Ocampo, kindly click on the link below:

 

_Marcial Ocampo_CV_October 2017

 

Hope I can be of help and contribute to the growth of your company.

Regards,

Marcial Ocampo

63-915-6067949 (GLOBE mobile)

 

Let us modernize our metro manila bus system, not the jeepney system

October 15th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in transport system
Let us modernize our metro manila bus system, not the jeepney system
Yes, modernizing the jeepney system with the same set of drivers we have today won’t solve our metro manila traffic problem. There will still be numerous of them blocking intersections, loading passengers at both sides of the intersection and still be the cause of grid locks. They will still operate illegal terminals and impede traffic flow at the end of road networks.
The correct solution is modernizing our bus system into two competing bus consortia – radial bus consortium and circular bus consortium.
The high volume profitable routes will subsidize the low volume non-profitable missionary routes usually dominated by the phased out jeeps and operated in a predictable bus schedule. I was in Leeds, UK and the municipal bus system operates in clock-work fashion. Bus stop posts shows the expected time the bus will pass and as commuter, you can be at the bus stop 5-10 minutes before schedule and queue to be able to ride and use your beep card to pay.
Why modernize the jeeps that lacks passenger capacity and passenger volume – they even have to operate an illegal terminal in order to survive and share the small volume of passenger – and then force them to purchase a costly vehicle? It will never work.
Let us follow the central dispatched bus consortium (of many bus owners and jeepney operators and phased-out drivers). The drivers will be monthly salaried and have minimum education requirement of college graduate like in Bangkok. They won’t be clogging intersections and drive with utmost courtesy thus avoiding gridlocks.
Using buses in major and minor routes eliminates many smaller jeepneys, AUVs, taxis and private cars since not all routes can be served by above ground and underground rail (LRT, MRT). There can be central dispatch to match bus volume with passenger volume at all times 24/7 operation. There will be intersecting radial and circular bus routes so passengers can navigate their way into the central business district in the most optimal manner.
Since the buses will be using beep cards, fares are paid electronically and passenger volume is monitored by central computers to optimize dispatch of buses in all radial and circular routes and complement the rail system (LRT, MRT).
Look at Tokyo and Seoul, they don’t have jeeps and small public transport, but have an integrated rail and bus system only to be complemented by a taxi system for the last-mile travel that is well-managed and disciplined.
Unless we phase out the low-capacity jeepneys and AUVs and replace them with an efficient centrally dispatched bus consortia of radial and circular route system using beep cards for electronic payment and computerized passenger volume monitoring with monthly salaried drivers, WE CAN NEVER SOLVE THE METRO MANILA TRAFFIC PROBLEM.
Marcial Ocampo

OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES -Now Open for Business

October 3rd, 2017 No Comments   Posted in energy expert

OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES – Now Open for Business

Yes, we are pleased to announce that OMT Energy Enterprises is now open for business.

OMT ENERGY can conduct in-house seminars, workshops and one-on-one training on power generation technology (description, history, capital and operating cost, power plant modeling, and economic and financial analysis to determine the feasibility of each technology).

Later on, OMT ENERGY will assist investors set up energy and power companies, register and secure permits, licenses and incentives from relevant authorities.

The cost of conducting in-house seminar, customizing project finance models, preparing power demand, energy demand, GDP and price forecasts, and feasibility studies  can be negotiated by contacting Marcial Ocampo at:

mars_ocampo@yahoo.com

or

energydataexpert@gmail.com

or

63-915-6067949 (GLOBE mobile)

Marcial can also be the chief executive officer (CEO, President), chief financial officer (CFO), chief operating officer (COO) or chief technical officer (CTO) or head of any major department in your company.

 

Following are services offered by OMT ENERGY:

Project Finance Modeling and Feasibility Study of any business enterprise

Supply/Demand/Price Forecasting with Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)

Deterministic and Stochastic Project Finance Modeling with MCS

Integrated Wind Speed, Power Curves, Capacity Factor and Project Finance with MCS

Conventional and Renewable Energy Statistics (historical, forecast)

Renewable and Conventional Energy Supply/Demand and Tariff Studies

Renewable Energy Resource Assessment (wind, solar, mini-hydro) and Optimal Configuration

Clean Coal and Conventional Coal Project Finance and Feasibility Studies

Petroleum Supply/Demand and Pump Price Studies

LNG Market Study and Fuel Substitution Studies

Biomass Power Barrier Removal

Mini-hydro Power Design, Costing, Modeling and Feasibility Studies

Tri-Generation (Power, Heat, Cooling) Optimization & Financial Modeling

Mid-Term and Final Term Review of WB, UNDP and ADB Projects

Energy & Business Development

Oil, Energy & Electricity Pricing

Feed-In Tariff Calculation for Renewable Energy/Electricity

Refinery, Utilities, Distribution & Transportation Optimization

Refinery & Petrochem Process Modeling & Optimization

Optimal Power & Load Dispatch

Project Finance, Power Plant Modeling & Financial Modeling

Market, Technical & Economic Feasibility Studies

Dam Simulation Modeling & Studies

General Ledger Accounting System

Loans Processing System

Business Modeling & Corporate Planning

Oil Industry Retail & Distribution Expansion Studies

Small Scale Project Finance Models (diesel, hydro, biomass, wind, solar, cogeneration, hybrid-RE)

Large Scale Project Finance Models (oil, coal, geothermal, gas turbines, combined cycles, nuclear)

 

OMT Energy Enterprises

OMT Energy Enterprises is owned and headed by Marcial Ocampo.

Marcial has prepared the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of all power generation technologies and existing power plants in the country so that a merit order load dispatch schedule (least expensive to most expensive) is prepared to determine the marginal power plant and clearing price for WESM.

Marcial was engaged full-time by SMC GLOBAL POWER HOLDINGS from Oct 1, 2014 to Sep 30, 2017 to provide energy consultancy services in energy & power, financial modeling, optimization for least cost capacity expansion planning, optimal load dispatch, and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) of supply and demand studies, forecasting WESM clearing prices, and MCS of project finance models to determine distribution of NPV, IRR, and PAYBACK of equity and project returns, net present value of income after tax discounted with pre-tax WACC, the pre-tax WACC, electricity tariff, annual generation and average capacity factor.

He is an Energy & Power Generation Technology Selection and Business Development Consultant for oil, gas, coal, geothermal, hydro, and renewable energy technologies such as biomass, solar, wind, mini-hydro, ocean thermal and ocean wave, energy storage and clean energy technologies. He conducts power and energy market studies, supply & demand studies, energy forecasts & projections, pre-feasibility studies, power plant modeling, project finance modeling and feasibility studies. He also optimizes load dispatch, least cost capacity expansion planning using linear programming (LP) models.

Marcial provides optimization and LP models for maximizing refinery value (product sales less crude cost, refining cost, refinery fuel, power and utilities, and other costs), transportation optimization such as petroleum product transshipment, product formulation such as least cost feed-mix component blending, and optimizing manufacturing processes.

From your Energy Technology Expert

Marcial Ocampo

Special Sale on Power Plant Project Finance Models – Renewable, Conventional, Fossil, Nuclear and Waste Heat Recovery Technologies

September 10th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

Special Sale on Power Plant Project Finance Models – Renewable, Conventional, Fossil, Nuclear and Waste Heat Recovery Technologies

The following models may be downloaded for only USD200 for the first 100 clients this September 1-30, 2017.

The models for renewable, conventional, fossil, nuclear, energy storage, and combined heat and power (CHP) project finance models are based on a single template so that you can prioritize which power generation technology to apply in a given application for more detailed design and economic study.

The models below are in Philippine Pesos (PHP) and may be converted to any foreign currency by inputting the appropriate exchange rate (e.g. 1 USD = 1.0000 USD; 1 USD = 50.000 PHP, 1 USD = 3.800 MYR, etc.). Then do a global replacement in all worksheets of ‘PHP’ with ‘XXX’, where ‘XXX’ is the foreign currency of the model.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

process heat (steam) and power

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-biomass-cogeneration-project-finance-model-ver-3/

bagasse, rice husk or wood waste fired boiler steam turbine generator

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-biomass-direct-combustion-project-finance-model-ver-3/

gasification (thermal conversion in high temperature without oxygen or air)

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-biomass-gasification-project-finance-model-ver-3/

integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-biomass-igcc-project-finance-model-ver-3/

waste-to-energy (WTE) technology for municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal and treatment

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-biomass-waste-to-energy-wte-project-finance-model-ver-3-2/

waste-to-energy (WTE) pyrolysis technology

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-biomass-waste-to-energy-wte-pyrolysis-project-finance-model-ver-3/

run-of-river (mini-hydro) power plant

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-mini-hydro-run-of-river-project-finance-model-ver-3/

concentrating solar power (CSP) 400 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-concentrating-solar-power-csp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

solar PV technology 1 MW Chinese

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-solar-photo-voltaic-pv-project-finance-model-ver-3-1-mw/

solar PV technology 25 MW European and Non-Chinese (Korean, Japanese, US)

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-solar-photo-voltaic-pv-project-finance-model-ver-3-25-mw/

includes 81 wind turbine power curves from onshore WTG manufacturers

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-onshore-wind-energy-project-finance-model-ver-3-copy/

includes 81 wind turbine power curves from offshore WTG manufacturers

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-offshore-wind-project-finance-model-ver-3/

ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology 10 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-otec-10-mw-project-finance-model-ver-3/

ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) technology 50 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion-otec-project-finance-model-ver-3-50-mw/

CONVENTIONAL, FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY

geothermal power plant 100 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-geo-thermal-project-finance-model-ver-3/

large hydro power plant 500 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-large-hydro-impoundment-project-finance-model-ver-3/

subcritical circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology 50 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-coal-fired-circulating-fluidized-cfb-project-finance-model-ver-3-50-mw/

subcritical circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology 135 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-coal-fired-circulating-fluidized-bed-cfb-project-finance-model-ver-3-135-mw/

subcritical pulverized coal (PC) technology 400 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-pulverized-coal-pc-subcritical-project-finance-model-ver-3/

supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology 500 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-pulverized-coal-pc-supercritical-project-finance-model-ver-3/

ultra-supercritical pulverized coal (PC) technology 650 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-pulverized-coal-pc-ultrasupercritical-project-finance-model-ver-3/

diesel-fueled genset (compression ignition engine) technology 50 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-diesel-genset-project-finance-model-ver-3-copy/

fuel oil (bunker oil) fired genset (compression ignition engine) technology 100 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-fuel-oil-genset-project-finance-model-ver-3-copy-2/

fuel oil (bunker oil) fired oil thermal technology 600 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-fuel-oil-thermal-project-finance-model-ver-3/

natural gas combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) 500 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-natgas-fired-combined-cycle-gas-turbine-ccgt-project-finance-model-ver-3/

natural gas simple cycle (open cycle) gas turbine (OCGT) 70 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-natgas-fired-open-cycle-gas-turbine-ocgt-project-finance-model-ver-3/

natural gas thermal 200 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-natgas-fired-thermal-project-finance-model-ver-3/

petroleum coke (petcoke) fired subcritical thermal 220 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-petcoke-thermal-power-plant-project-finance-model-ver-3/

nuclear (uranium) pressurized heavy water reactor (PHWR) technology 1330 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-nuclear-power-phwr-project-finance-model-ver-3/

WASTE HEAT RECOVERY BOILER (DIESEL genset; GASOLINE genset; PROPANE, LPG or NATURAL GAS simple cycle)

combined heat and power (CHP) circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology 50 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-coal-fired-cfb-combined-heat-and-power-chp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

diesel genset (diesel, gas oil) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-diesel-fired-genset-combined-heat-and-power-chp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

fuel oil (bunker) genset and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-bunker-fired-genset-combined-heat-and-power-chp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

gasoline genset (gasoline, land fill gas) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-gasoline-fired-genset-combined-heat-and-power-chp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

simple cycle GT (propane, LPG) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW (e.g. Capstone)

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-lpg-fired-genset-combined-heat-and-power-chp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

simple cycle GT (natural gas, land fill gas) and waste heat recovery boiler 3 MW (e.g. Capstone)

http://energydataexpert.com/shop/power-generation-technologies/advanced-natgas-fired-genset-combined-heat-and-power-chp-project-finance-model-ver-3/

Cheers,

Your energy technology selection and project finance modeling expert

 

Solar + Energy Storage = Future of Mankind

September 10th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in solar energy storage

Solar + Energy Storage = Future of Mankind

I am sharing this earth-shaking article from ENERGY CENTRAL.

The Saharan Desert is poised to provide limitless power to the whole of EUROPE.

Here in the Philippines, the local pioneer is SOLAR PHILIPPINES headed by the young and energetic Mr. Leandro Leviste.

Likewise, electric vehicles (EVs) will dominate the global market by 2030-2040 as more global car manufacturers shift completely from petrol to petrol-electric hybrid to pure electric vehicles with grid electricity coming from renewable energy and off-peak solar photo voltaic (solar PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) that will provide base-load generation thru large scale storage batteries (lithium ion, vanadium). Electric vehicles can now travel from 200-400 km per charge and is expected to rise as battery technology improves further.

It looks now that solar energy is poised to replace the sunset fossil oil and coal-fired power generation in many places of the world such as USA, China and Europe.

http://www.energycentral.com/c/pip/solar-storage-future-both-industries

The growth trend in both the energy storage market and the solar market puts solar-plus-storage in a market sweet spot. IMS Research indicates that the market for storing power from solar panels will grow to $19 billion by the end of this year.

Energy storage installation is expected to expand rapidly from 6 gigawatts in 2017 to more than 40 gigawatts by 2022 according to the Energy Storage Association, and the industry is expected to be worth nearly $11 billion by 2022. The solar industry has also experienced a boom as the United States solar market added 2,044 megawatts of new capacity in the first quarter of 2017.

More and more solar-plus-storage projects are starting all over the U.S., largely due to the fact that lithium-ion prices are dropping and customers now feel more comfortable with the technology. Thus, according to GreenTech Media, energy storage has become the “Darling of the Solar Industry.” The main benefit of solar-plus-storage is its ability to maximize the benefits of intermittent resources such as solar and wind power.

Residential + Solar + Storage

Homeowners benefit from solar-plus-storage because it saves them more money than either system can by themselves, and it reduces their carbon footprint that much more as well. As prices drop, more residential customers will install solar-plus-storage systems in their homes to take advantage of these benefits. Residential energy storage is expected to growth exponentially from 95 megawatts in 2016 to 3,773 megawatts by 2025.

The installed price of residential solar-plus-storage systems has already dropped 25 to 30 percent over the last two to three years, according to Ravi Manghani, director of energy storage for GTM Research. In addition, he says that consumers can realize additional cost reductions when they take advantage of state and federal incentives.

Utilities + Solar + Storage

Solar-plus-storage can make utilities more productive and help them maximize revenues. For example, demand for electricity can increase when consumers utilize solar-plus-storage technology. This demand reduces the need for new fossil fuel facilities, leading to an environmental benefit as well.

In addition, utilities can contract with their customers to draw power from their batteries when the grid needs it, thus lowering energy costs for all stakeholders and protecting against the environmental consequences of burning more fossil fuels to generate energy. More utilities will start to take advantage of solar-plus-storage as prices for utility-scale systems decrease. In fact, one manufacturer says that solar paired with energy storage can be supplied to utilities at a cost of 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Visit WillCoEnergy.com for more information.

Kevin Williams’s picture

Kevin Williams

Kevin Williams is a native of Kansas City, MO with a history of entrepreneurship. He has been a principal in several start-ups and consulted with business owners at many levels.

 

Career History of Marcial T. Ocampo

September 8th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in career history

Career History of Marcial T. Ocampo

Areas of Interest:

Energy & Power Generation

Linear Programming Optimization (Real and Mixed Integer LP)

Monte Carlo Simulation and Project Risk

Energy, Power and Fuel Supply & Demand Forecasting

Project Finance and Financial Modeling

Econometric Modeling (GDP, Price, Inflation, Employment)

Technical, Economic and Financial Feasibility Studies

Power Plant Management, Planning, Finance, Operations, Technical Services

WB and UNDP Renewable Energy, Barrier Removal and Project Evaluation

Education:

Elementary – Grade 6 – Valedictorian

High School – Year 4 – Salutatorian

College – B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines

2nd Place – Chemical Engineering Board Exam – 87.75%

Masters – M.S. Chemical Engineering, University of the Philippines

Masters – M.S. Combustion & Energy, Leeds University, United Kingdom

Work Experience:

Jun 2014 – Present

Independent Advisor (see above expertise)

Jun 2014 – Present

Energy Technology Selection Expert, Project Finance Modeling, Optimization, Monte  Carlo Simulation at OMT Energy Enterprises

Oct 2014 – Present

Energy and Power Consultant at SMC GLOBAL POWER HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Mar 2013 – Sep 2017

Senior Power Generation Engineer at Sinclair Knight Mertz (SKM)

Sep 2012 – Nov 2012

Comprehensive Feasibility Study for Coal-Fired CFB Power Plant Project at Test Consultants, Inc.

Aug 2012 – Sep 2012

International Energy Consultant for Final Review of ENERGY CONSERVATION at UNDP-India

Feb 2012 – Sep 2012

Technical Working Group (TWG) Member, Independent Oil Industry Pricing Review Committee (IOPRC) at Philippine Department of Energy (Pump Price Calculation Model)

Feb 2012 – Jul 2012

CDM Consultancy to Wind Energy Farms of PhilCarbon at PhilCarbon Inc.

Jan 2012 – Jan 2012

External Evaluation of ESMAP 2007-2011 at Baastel

Dec 2011 – Dec 2011

International Energy Consultant / Expert Evaluator at UNDP-China

Sep 2011 – Oct 2011

Project Finance & Financial Modeling Consultant at Hitachi Asia Ltd

May 2011 – Jul 2011

Technical, Market, Economic and Feasibility Study Consultant at PNOC-EC

Apr 2011 – May 2011

Biomass Power Project Mid-Term Review Consultant at UNDP-India

Mar 2011 – Apr 2011

Natural Gas and LNG Market Study Consultant at Confidential Company

Jan 2011 – Mar 2011

Wind Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility Study of 2 Sites at Constellation Energy Corporation

Nov 2010 – Nov 2010

Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Demonstration at UNDP-China

Aug 2010 – Sep 2010

Wind-Diesel Hybrid Power Generation at UNDP Indonesia

Jan 2010 – Jan 2010

Presentor of Feed-In Tariff Calculation Procedure at DOE-NREB

Dec 2009 – Dec 2009

Seminar Lecturer & Consultant – Biomass Feed-In Tariff at Biomass Alliance & Phil. Sugar Mfg. Ass. (PSMA)

Dec 2009 – Dec 2009

Seminar Speaker, Feed-in Tariff Calculation at Energy Practitioners Association of the Philippines

Nov 2009 – Dec 2009

Expert on Dam Operation & Safety at House of Representatives of the Philippines (Pre-emptive discharge and dam water release simulation to avoid dam spill before incoming storm)

Jul 2009 – Oct 2009

Consultant for Greenfield Natural Gas CCGT Power Plant at PNOC Exploration Corporation

Jun 2009 – Jun 2009

Consultant for Lignite Coal Fired CFB Power Plant at PNOC Exploration Corporation

Oct 2008 – Nov 2008

CME Biodiesel Technical & Economic Consultant at Rapco CME Biodiesel

Jun 2008 – Jun 2008

Oil Pricing Expert & Consultant at Philippine Department of Energy

Apr 2008 – Apr 2008

Clean Coal Technology Consultant at E-Power

Jun 2007 – Dec 2007

Qualified Third Party (QTP) Consultant for Rural Electrification at World Bank & Philippine Department of Energy (Biomass-Diesel Hybrid Power Generation and Electricity Tariff Setting)

May 2007 – Dec 2007

Liquid Fuels & Additive Consultant at Octagon Chem Oil Corporation

Aug 2007 – Sep 2007

Financial Modeling Consultant at Harty Philippines, Inc.

Feb 2001 – Nov 2006

Senior Technical Services Manager at First Gen Corporation (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine, Pulverized Coal, and Large Dam power generation)

Sep 1999 – Jan 2001

Executive Director at Philippine Council for Industry & Energy Research & Development (PCIERD) of the Department of Science & Technology (DOST)

Jun 1997 – Jan 1998

EDP, Budget & Planning Manager at Petronas Energy Philippines, Inc.

Jun 1993 – May 1997

President & General Manager at Real Time Management Systems (Crude Oil Refinery Operation and Finished Product Distribution optimization with Linear Programming)

Nov 1990 – May 1993

Petron MIS Coordinator at PNOC-Petron Corporation (Nationwide computerization)

Jun 1983 – Nov 1990

Head, Computer Systems Group at PNOC-Petron Bataan Refinery (Refinery computerization and custodian of the Refinery Linear Programming model)

Apr 1978 – Jun 1986

Section Chief for Transport, Building & Machineries at Bureau of Energy Utilization, Philippine Department of Energy

Jun 1974 – Mar 1978

Lecturer at College of Engineering, University of the Philippines

=======

If you are interested in his services, email him quickly as he will be available by October 1, 2017:

mars_ocampo@yahoo.com

energydataexpert@gmail.com

or call:

63-915-6067949 (GLOBE mobile)

 

Nano machines that drill into cancer cells killing them in just 60 seconds developed by scientists

September 2nd, 2017 No Comments   Posted in cancer treatment

Nano machines that drill into cancer cells killing them in just 60 seconds developed by scientists

© Provided by The Telegraph

Nanomachines which can drill into cancer cells, killing them in just 60 seconds, have been developed by scientists.

The tiny spinning molecules are driven by light, and spin so quickly that they can burrow their way through cell linings when activated.

In one test conducted at Durham University the nanomachines took between one and three minutes to break through the outer membrane of prostate cancer cell, killing it instantly.

The ‘motor’ is a rotor-like chain of atoms that can be prompted to move in one direction, causing the molecule to rotate at high speed.

© Provided by The Telegraph

Dr Robert Pal of Durham University said: “We are moving towards realising our ambition to be able to use light-activated nanomachines to target cancer cells such as those in breast tumours and skin melanomas, including those that are resistant to existing chemotherapy.

“Once developed, this approach could provide a potential step change in non-invasive cancer treatment and greatly improve survival rates and patient welfare globally.”

Motorised molecules that target diseased cells may deliver drugs or kill the cells by drilling into the cell membranes.Credit: Tour Group/Rice University

The scientists, whose work is reported in the journal Nature, created several different light-activated motorised molecules designed to home in on specific cells.

They found that the nanomachines needed to spin at two to three million times per second to overcome nearby obstacles and outpace natural Brownian motion, the erratic movement of microscopic particles suspended in fluid.

The molecules could be used either to tunnel into cells carrying therapeutic agents, or to act as killer weapons that blast open tumour membranes.

© Provided by The Telegraph

Without an ultraviolet trigger, the motor molecules located target cells but then remained harmlessly on their surfaces.

The prostate cancer cells start to ‘bleb’ or disintegrate after just 60 seconds, as seen in the bottom image

When triggered, the molecules rapidly drilled through the cell membranes.

© Provided by The Telegraph

Dr James Tour, a member of the international team from Rice University in Houston, US, said: “These nanomachines are so small that we could park 50,000 of them across the diameter of a human hair, yet they have the targeting and actuating components combined in that diminutive package to make molecular machines a reality for treating disease.

“In this study we have shown that we can drill into cells, animal cells, human cells using these nanomachines, they will attach to the surface and then a light will be shone upon them and they will drill right into the cell.

“For many years I never had envisioned the nanomachines being used medically, I though they were way too small, because they are much much smaller than a cell, but now this work has really changed my thoughts on this and I think therapeutically this will be a whole new way to treat patients, it’s going to be an excellent application for cancer treatment, not just for killing of cells but for the treatment of cells, interacting with the human body using molecular machines.”

The researchers are already proceeding with experiments in microorganisms and small fish and hope to move to rodents soon, ahead of clinical trials in humans if animal testing is successful.

http://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/technology/nanomachines-that-drill-into-cancer-cells-killing-them-in-just-60-seconds-developed-by-scientists/ar-AAr30IZ?li=BBr8zL6&ocid=TSHDHP

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL power plant project finance model

July 26th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 3,000 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 2,034 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 10th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 37.80 $/kW/year (target cost) = 3,452.00 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 4.47 $/MWh (target cost) = 30.26 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 311.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of petcoke fuel = 14,670 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 8,800 Btu/kWh (38.77% thermal efficiency)

Cost of petcoke fuel = 100.00 $/MT = 5,030 PhP/MT = 5.030 PhP/kg

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 110.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 110.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                     93.57% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                           95.00% (assumed)

Allowance for losses & own use, %                       10.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    80.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                                  0.2%

 

construction period = 36 months (start 2016)

operating period = 25 years (start 2019)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                    20.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                   100.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $397.64 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $1,473.90 12.2%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 62.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 10.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 50.1%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $398
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $203,471
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $2,480
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $37,713
   Construction Contingency $9,563
   Value Added Tax $17,649
   Financing Costs $35,496
   Initial Working Capital $22,443
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $329,999
                                 – PhP 000 16,597,985
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $230,999
   Equity $99,000
Total Sources of Fund $329,999

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 50 %

Foreign Capital = 50 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 120 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment:

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 15.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (50% local, 50% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 12
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.80% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 12.43% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.70% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 6.16152 P/kWh = 0.12250 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel        28,602,223 1.52063
Lubes                2,133 0.00011
Var O&M          4,696,641 0.24970
Total        33,300,998 1.77044
MWh net        18,809,472
SRMC        33,300,998 1.77044
Fix O&M        10,264,198 0.54569
Capital Cost        72,329,714 3.84539
LRMC      115,894,910 6.16152

 

SRMC = 1.77044 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 6.16152 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 15.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00    ‘000$

PAYBACK = 8.66    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 12.09        % p.a.

NPV        = (2,424,999)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 15.00%)

PAYBACK = 6.78        years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 15.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below

Model Inputs and Results – Petcoke Subcritical

 

Download the complete demo model for a petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Petcoke-Fired PC Subcritical Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Petcoke-Fired PC Subcritical Thermal Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Petcoke-fired Thermal 110 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model with free guidance on using it. The list price of the petcoke-fired SUBCRITICAL model is USD1,400 and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

 

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) nuclear PHWR power plant project finance model

July 26th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) nuclear PHWR power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a nuclear PHWR (pressurized hot water reactor) power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a nuclear PHWR power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into nuclear PHWR power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 5,530 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 3,256 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 15th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 93.28 $/kW/year (target cost) = 111,436.79 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 2.14 $/MWh (target cost) = 10.88 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 370.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of nuclear fuel = 1,676,708,808 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 10,268 Btu/kWh (33.23% thermal efficiency of steam cycle)

Energy content of nuclear fuel = 3,900 GJ/kg

Electricity generation per kg = 360,000 kWh/kg

Cost of nuclear fuel = 365 (fuel) + 400 (fabrication) = 765 $/kg = 765,000 $/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 1,330.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 1,330.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    96.67% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     98.00% (assumed)

allowance for losses & own use, %                       5.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    90.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.5%

 

construction period = 60 months (start 2014)

operating period = 30 years (start 2019)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   50.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $248.52 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $2,594.07 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 1.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 1.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 48.7%

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $249
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $4,329,885
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $40
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $765,110
   Construction Contingency $199,215
   Value Added Tax $379,079
   Financing Costs $1,203,247
   Initial Working Capital $477,586
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $7,355,197
                                 – PhP 000 369,945,067
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $5,148,638
   Equity $2,206,559
Total Sources of Fund $7,355,197

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 49 %

Foreign Capital = 51 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment: (fossil fuel)

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (49% local, 51% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.48% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 11.98% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.38% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 7.59514 P/kWh = 0.15101 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel        32,825,596 0.11251
Lubes            338,460 0.00116
Var O&M        32,718,776 0.11214
Total        65,882,832 0.22581
MWh net      291,765,159
SRMC        65,882,832 0.22581
Fix O&M      301,344,116 1.03283
Capital Cost    1,848,769,523 6.33650
LRMC    2,215,996,471 7.59514

SRMC = 0.22581 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 7.59514 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 8.68 years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 10.96          % p.a.

NPV        = (58,478,322)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 6.73           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Nuclear PHWR

 

Download the complete demo model for a nuclear PHWR power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Nuclear PHWR Model3 – demo5b

ADV Nuclear PHWR Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Nuclear 1330 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

 

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) natural gas OCGT power plant project finance model

July 25th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) natural gas OCGT power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a natural gas OCGT (open cycle gas turbine, also known as simple cycle gas turbine) power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a natural gas OCGT power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into natural gas OCGT power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 973 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 575 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 12th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 7.34 $/kW/year (target cost) = 474.49 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 15.45 $/MWh (target cost) = 40.44 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 10.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of natural gas OCGT fuel = 22,129 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 10,850 Btu/kWh (31.45% thermal efficiency)

Cost of fuel per mmBtu = 9.103 $/mmBtu

Cost of natural gas fuel = 8.628 $/GJ = 444.10 $/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 85.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 85.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    33.24% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                           95.00% (assumed)

allowance for losses & own use, %                           5.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    30.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                                  0.2%

 

construction period = 36 months (start 2014)

operating period = 30 years (start 2017)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   20.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $49.70 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $479.89 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 1.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 1.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 49.4%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $50
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $51,192
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $40
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $9,226
   Construction Contingency $2,395
   Value Added Tax $4,484
   Financing Costs $8,887
   Initial Working Capital $5,646
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $82,707
                                 – PhP 000 4,159,909
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $57,895
   Equity $24,812
Total Sources of Fund $82,707

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 49 %

Foreign Capital = 51 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment: (fossil fuel)

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (49% local, 51% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.49% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 11.99% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.39% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 9.58605 P/kWh = 0.19059 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel        34,026,803 5.22921
Lubes                7,548 0.00116
Var O&M          5,315,159 0.81683
Total        39,349,510 6.04720
MWh net          6,507,059
SRMC        39,349,510 6.04720
Fix O&M          2,630,382 0.40424
Capital Cost        20,397,131 3.13462
LRMC        62,377,023 9.58605

SRMC = 6.04720 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 9.58605 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 10.05 years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.60          % p.a.

NPV        = (570,157)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 7.29           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Natural Gas Simple Cycle GT

 

Download the complete demo model for a natural gas OCGT power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Natgas Simple Cycle Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Simple Cycle Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Natural Gas-fired OCGT 85 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) natural gas CCGT power plant project finance model

July 25th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) natural gas CCGT power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a natural gas CCGT (combined cycle gas turbine) power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a natural gas CCGT power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into natural gas CCGT power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 917 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 575 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 12th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 14.13 $/kW/year (target cost) = 6,916.62 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 3.60 $/MWh (target cost) = 26.87 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 370.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of natural gas CCGT fuel = 22,129 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 7,050 Btu/kWh (48.40% thermal efficiency)

Cost of fuel per mmBtu = 9.103 $/mmBtu

Cost of natural gas fuel = 8.628 $/GJ = 444.10 $/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 620.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 620.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    96.40% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     95.00% (assumed)

allowance for losses & own use, %                         5.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    87.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.2%

 

construction period = 36 months (start 2014)

operating period = 25 years (start 2017)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   20.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $99.41 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $458.10 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 1.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 1.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 48.7%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $99
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $356,450
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $40
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $63,157
   Construction Contingency $16,437
   Value Added Tax $31,222
   Financing Costs $61,034
   Initial Working Capital $39,316
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $568,542
                                 – PhP 000 28,596,013
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $397,979
   Equity $170,563
Total Sources of Fund $568,542

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 49 %

Foreign Capital = 51 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment: (fossil fuel)

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (49% local, 51% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.48% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 11.97% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.38% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 4.81729 P/kWh = 0.09578 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel      391,742,442 3.39778
Lubes            133,745 0.00116
Var O&M        21,841,145 0.18944
Total      413,717,332 3.58838
MWh net      115,293,514
SRMC      413,717,332 3.58838
Fix O&M        23,045,754 0.19989
Capital Cost      118,638,864 1.02902
LRMC      555,401,951 4.81729

SRMC = 3.58838 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 4.81729 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 9.87    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.41          % p.a.

NPV        = (4,243,735)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 7.35           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Natural Gas Combined Cycle GT

 

Download the complete demo model for a natural gas CCGT power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Natgas Combined Cycle Model3 – demo5b

ADV Natgas Combined Cycle Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Natural Gas-fired CCGT 620 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) large hydro power plant project finance model

July 25th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) large hydro power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a large hydro power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a large hydro power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into large hydro power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 2,936 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 2,109 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 15th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 14.13 $/kW/year (target cost) = 4,728.61 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 2.00 $/MWh (target cost) = 8.61 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 100.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs: (no applicable to large hydro)

Gross heating value of large hydro fuel = 5,198 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 13,500 Btu/kWh (25.28% thermal efficiency)

Cost of biomass fuel = 1.299 PhP/kg = 1,299 PhP/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 500.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 500.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    57.68% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     92.00% (assumed)

allowance for losses & own use, %                         2.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    52.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.5%

 

construction period = 36 months (start 2014)

operating period = 30 years (start 2017)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   40.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $198.82 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $1,842.20 43.0%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 10.0% 80.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 25.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $84.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $500.00 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $20.00 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 15.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 2.5% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 5.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 7.5% 55.7%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $199
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $1,054,662
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $2,100
   Sub-Station Facility $500
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $47,263
   Construction Contingency $81,295
   Value Added Tax $69,536
   Financing Costs $159,156
   Initial Working Capital $52,733
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $1,467,443
                                 – PhP 000 73,808,108
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $1,027,210
   Equity $440,233
Total Sources of Fund $1,467,443

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 56 %

Foreign Capital = 44 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment:

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (56% local, 44% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.58% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 12.11% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.48% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 6.19949 P/kWh = 0.12326 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel                      – 0.00000
Lubes                7,127 0.00011
Var O&M          6,496,970 0.10252
Total          6,504,097 0.10263
MWh net        63,374,220
SRMC          6,504,097 0.10263
Fix O&M        33,657,041 0.53108
Capital Cost      352,726,856 5.56578
LRMC      392,887,994 6.19949

 

SRMC = 0.10263 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 6.19949 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 10.02    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.65          % p.a.

NPV        = (9,394,578)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 7.08           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Large Hydro

Download the complete demo model for a large hydro power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

 ADV Large Hydro Model3 – demo5b

ADV Large Hydro Model3 (USD) – demo5b

 

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Large Hydro 500 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

 

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) geothermal power plant project finance model

July 24th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) geothermal power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a geothermal power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a geothermal power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into geothermal power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 6,243 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 3,753 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 12th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 132.00 $/kW/year (target cost) = 5,942.85 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 8.00 $/MWh (target cost) = 56.11 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 370.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of geothermal fuel = 1,104 Btu/lb (geothermal steam)

Plant heat rate = 34,121 Btu/kWh (10.00% thermal efficiency)

Cost per mmBtu = 2.273 $/mmBtu

Cost of geothermal steam = 2.154 $/GJ = 5.53 $/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 50.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 50.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    99.84% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     97.00% (assumed)

allowance for losses & own use, %                       5.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    92.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.5%

 

construction period = 48 months (start 2014)

operating period = 25 years (start 2018)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   30.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $99.41 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $2,990.42 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 10.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 10.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 49.2%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $99
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $187,649
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $400
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $34,971
   Construction Contingency $8,752
   Value Added Tax $16,437
   Financing Costs $42,422
   Initial Working Capital $20,641
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $312,158
                                 – PhP 000 15,700,654
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $218,511
   Equity $93,647
Total Sources of Fund $312,158

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 49 %

Foreign Capital = 51 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment:

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (49% local, 51% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.49% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 11.98% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.39% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 12.75915 P/kWh = 0.25368 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel        38,877,090 4.10548
Lubes              10,985 0.00116
Var O&M          3,999,890 0.42239
Total        42,887,965 4.52903
MWh net          9,469,560
SRMC        42,887,965 4.52903
Fix O&M      13,194,980 1.39341
Capital Cost        64,740,637 6.83671
LRMC      120,823,583 12.75915

SRMC = 4.52903 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 12.75915 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 8.90    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.17          % p.a.

NPV        = (2,301,468)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 6.83           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Geothermal

 

Download the complete demo model for a geothermal power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Geo Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Geo Thermal Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Geothermal 50 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) fuel oil thermal power plant project finance model

July 24th, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) fuel oil thermal power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a fuel oil thermal (steam cycle) power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a fuel oil thermal power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into fuel oil thermal power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 1,000 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 641 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 10th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 30.00 $/kW/year (target cost) = 8,157.41 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 10.00 $/MWh (target cost) = 53.90 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 100.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of fuel oil thermal fuel = 19,500 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 8,979 Btu/kWh (38.00% thermal efficiency)

Density of diesel fuel = 0.966 kg/Liter

Cost of fuel oil thermal fuel = 25.00 PhP/Liter = 514.54 USD/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 300.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 300.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    70.18% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     95.00% (assumed)

allowance for losses & own use, %                       10.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    60.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.5%

 

construction period = 24 months (start 2014)

operating period = 20 years (start 2016)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   30.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $149.11 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $510.98 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 10.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 10.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 49.2%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $149
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $192,385
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $400
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $35,808
   Construction Contingency $8,970
   Value Added Tax $16,852
   Financing Costs $23,497
   Initial Working Capital $21,162
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $300,009
                                 – PhP 000 15,089,572
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $210,006
   Equity $90,003
Total Sources of Fund $300,009

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 49 %

Foreign Capital = 51 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment: (fossil fuel)

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (49% local, 51% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC = 10.49% p.a.

WACC pre-tax = 11.98% p.a.

WACC after-tax = 8.39% p.a.

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 8.65344 P/kWh = 0.17205 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC):

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel      180,407,888 6.00598
Lubes              36,781 0.00122
Var O&M        16,750,178 0.55763
Total      197,194,846 6.56484
MWh net        30,038,040
SRMC      197,194,846 6.56484
Fix O&M        14,405,624 0.47958
Capital Cost        48,332,000 1.60903
LRMC      259,932,470 8.65344

SRMC = 6.56484 PHP/kWh (variable O&M + fuel + lubes)

LRMC = 8.65344 PHP/kWh (capital cost + fixed O&M + regulatory + SRMC)

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 9.83    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.59           % p.a.

NPV        = (1,977,185)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 7.25           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Fuel Oil Thermal

Download the complete demo model for a fuel oil thermal power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Fuel Oil Thermal Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Thermal Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

Fuel Oil Thermal 300 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) fuel oil genset power plant project finance model

July 23rd, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) fuel oil genset power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a fuel oil genset (low speed turbo charged) power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a fuel oil genset power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into fuel oil genset power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 1,363 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 903 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 10th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 25.30 $/kW/year (target cost) = 4,802.92 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 36.16 $/MWh (target cost) = 165.27 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 10.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of fuel oil genset fuel = 19,500 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 9,478 Btu/kWh (36.00% thermal efficiency)

Density of diesel fuel = 0.966 kg/Liter

Cost of fuel oil genset fuel = 25.00 PhP/Liter = 514.54 USD/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 225.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 225.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    58.48% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     95.00% (assumed)

llowance for losses & own use, %                       10.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    50.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.5%

 

construction period = 24 months (start 2014)

operating period = 20 years (start 2016)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   20.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Land cost, $000 $99.41 100.0%
Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $696.56 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 10.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 10.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 49.2%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $99
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $196,692
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $400
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $36,568
   Construction Contingency $9,168
   Value Added Tax $17,229
   Financing Costs $24,011
   Initial Working Capital $21,636
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $306,591
                                 – PhP 000 15,420,619
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $214,613
   Equity $91,977
Total Sources of Fund $306,591

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 49 %

Foreign Capital = 51 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 60 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment: (fossil fuel)

Customs duty = 3%

Value added tax (VAT) = 12%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (49% local, 51% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC pre-tax       11.98%

WACC after-tax     8.39%

WACC                   10.49%

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 11.49898 P/kWh = 0.22862 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC)

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel      119,021,185 6.33976
Lubes              22,988 0.00122
Var O&M        37,918,162 2.01974
Total      156,962,336 8.36072
MWh net        18,773,775
SRMC      156,962,336 8.36072
Fix O&M        10,497,977 0.55918
Capital Cost        48,418,877 2.57907
LRMC      215,879,190 11.49898

 

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00     ‘000$

PAYBACK = 9.52    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.70           % p.a.

NPV        = (1,847,006)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 7.07           years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Fuel Oil Genset

 

Download the complete demo model for a fuel oil genset power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Fuel Oil Genset Model3 – demo5b

ADV Fuel Oil Genset Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

CI Fuel Oil Genset 225 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

How to use the advanced (regulator) diesel genset power plant project finance model

July 22nd, 2017 No Comments   Posted in financial models

How to use the advanced (regulator) diesel genset power plant project finance model

Finding an easy-to-use project finance model for a diesel genset power plant with built-in data is sometimes difficult as some models don’t have the sophistication of a regulator template model as well as the ease of using the model and viewing immediately the results of a sensitivity change in the inputs to the model.

This is now made easy because the Input & Assumptions worksheet (tab) has combined all the input and output information in a single worksheet and placing the reports in other worksheets such as Tariff Breakdown, Construction Period, Operating Period, Financial Reports and Levelized Tariff.

Following is a sample case study on a diesel genset power plant. From the preliminary design and cost estimates, the top management would want to know if the business idea of going into diesel genset power development, construction and operation is worth the effort – is it feasible and what are the economic and financial returns for risking capital.

Here are the inputs and outputs of the advanced template model from OMT ENERGY ENTERPRISES:

——————————————————————————————-

Here are the summary of inputs:

all-in capital cost (overnight cost) = 1,040 $/kW (target cost)

EPC cost portion = 585 $/kW (computed by model)

refurbishment cost = 5% of EPC cost on the 10th year (overhaul)

fixed O&M cost = 10.73 $/kW/year (target cost) = 204.08 ‘000$/unit/year (computed by goal seek)

variable O&M cost = 33.28 $/MWh (target cost) = 111.79 ‘000$/MW/year (computed by goal seek)

general admin cost = 10.00 ‘000$/year (target cost)

 

Thermal power plant inputs:

Gross heating value of diesel genset fuel = 18,600 Btu/lb

Plant heat rate = 10,663 Btu/kWh (32.00% thermal efficiency)

Density of diesel fuel = 0.845 kg/L

Cost of diesel genset fuel = 30.00 PhP/L = 705.86 USD/MT

 

Lube oil consumption rate = 5.4 gram/kWh

Density of lube oil = 0.980 kg/Liter

Cost of lube oil = 200.00 PhP/Liter

 

capacity = 25.00 MW/unit x 1 unit = 25.00 MW

 

Plant Availability Factor, %                                    40.82% (computed by goal seek)

Load Factor, %                                                     100.00% (assumed)

Allowance for losses & own use, %                         2.00% (assumed)

Net Capacity Factor after losses & own use, %    40.00% (target net capacity factor)

Degradation rate, %                                               0.5%

 

construction period = 24 months (start 2014)

operating period = 20 years (start 2016)

 

Capital cost estimation assumptions and % local cost (LC):

Power plant footprint (ha)                                   10.00

Cost of purchased land (PhP/sqm)                    25.00 (no land lease)

Equipment Cost ex BOP, Transport ($000/MW) $465.76 11.4%
Insurance, Ocean Freight, Local Transport, % of Equipment Cost 4.5% 100.0%
Balance of Plant (BOP), % of Equipment Cost 21.0% 100.0%
Transmission Line Distance (km) 10.00
T/L Cost per km, 69 kV ($000/km) $40.00 100.0%
Switchyard & Transformers ($000) $786.21 100.0%
Access Roads ($000/km) $181.82 100.0%
Distance of Access Road (km) 10.00
Dev’t & Other Costs (land, permits, etc) (% of EPC) 15.0% 100.0%
VAT on importation (70% recoverable) 12% 100.0%
Customs Duty 3% 100.0%
Initial Working Capital (% of EPC) 11.0% 100.0%
Contingency (% of Total Cost) 4.0% 55.4%

 

Capital cost breakdown (‘000$): (computed values)

Uses of Fund:
   Land Cost $50
   EPC (Equipment, Balance of Plant, Transport) $14,613
   Transmission Line Interconnection Facility $400
   Sub-Station Facility $786
   Development & Other Costs (Civil Works, Customs Duty) $4,400
   Construction Contingency $792
   Value Added Tax $1,281
   Financing Costs $2,052
   Initial Working Capital $1,607
Total Uses of Fund – $000 $25,982
                                 – PhP 000 1,306,832
Sources of Fund:
   Debt $18,188
   Equity $7,795
Total Sources of Fund $25,982

 

Local and Foreign Cost Components (from individual cost item):

Local Capital = 55 %

Foreign Capital = 45 %

 

Balance Sheet Accounts:

Receivables = 30 days of revenue

Payables    = 30 days of expenses

Inventory    = 120 days of consumables

 

Imported Capital Equipment: (fossil fuel)

Customs duty = 0%

Value added tax (VAT) = 0%

VAT recovery = 0% on 5th year of operation

 

Type of input / output VAT = 1 (with VAT)

Type of incentives = 1 (NO incentives)

 

Tax Assumptions:

Income Tax Holiday (yrs) 0
Income Tax Rate % (after ITH) 30%
Property tax (from COD) 2.0%
Property tax valuation rate (% of NBV) 80%
Local Business Tax 1.0%
Government Share (from COD) 0.0%
ER 1-94 Contribution (PhP/kWh) 0.01
Withholding Tax on Interest (Foreign Currency) – WHT 10%
Gross Receipts Tax on Interest (Local Currency) – GRT 1%
Documentary Stamps Tax (DST) 0.5%
PEZA Incentives (% of gross income) – 0% / 5% 0%
Royalty 0%

 

Capital Structure:

Equity Share = 30% at 14.00% p.a. target equity returns (IRR)

Debt Share = 70% (55% local, 45% foreign)

 

Debt Terms:

Local & Foreign Upfront & Financing Fees 2.00%
Local & Foreign Commitment Fees 0.50%
Local All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 10.00%
Local Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Foreign All-in Interest Rate excluding tax 8.00%
Foreign Debt Payment Period (from end of GP) (yrs) 10
Local and Foreign Grace Period from COD (mos) 6
Local and Foreign debt Service Reserve (mos) 6

 

Foreign Exchange Rate:

Base Foreign Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2013            48.0000 (construction)

Forward Fixed Exchange Rate (PhP/US$) – 2014           50.2971 (operating)

 

Escalation (CPI):

Annual Local CPI – for OPEX      0.0%            4.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

Annual US CPI – for OPEX           0.0%            2.0%     for CAPEX (to model construction delay)

 

Weighted Average Cost of Capital:

WACC pre-tax         12.11%

WACC after-tax      8.48%

WACC                        10.58%

 

Results of Financial Analysis:

 

First year tariff (Feed-in-Tariff) = 14.26954 P/kWh = 0.28371 USD/kWh

(at zero equity NPV)

 

Short run marginal cost (SRMC) and Long run marginal cost (LRMC)

Item PhP 000 PhP/kWh
Fuel        15,720,785 9.42053
Lubes                1,877 0.00112
Var O&M          2,848,052 1.70667
Total        18,570,714 11.12832
MWh net          1,668,780
SRMC        18,570,714 11.12832
Fix O&M            741,261 0.44419
Capital Cost          4,500,753 2.69703
LRMC        23,812,727 14.26954

 

Equity Returns: (30% equity, 70% debt)

IRR          = 14.00    % p.a. (target returns)

NPV        = 0.00    ‘000$

PAYBACK = 10.12    years

 

Project Returns: (100% equity, 0% debt)

IRR          = 11.35        % p.a.

NPV        = (201,064)  ‘000$ (negative since IRR < 14.00%)

PAYBACK = 7.50        years

——————————————————————————————-

The above runs were based on goal-seek to make equity NPV = 0 (to meet equity IRR target of 14.00% p.a.).

You can perform sensitivity analysis and save the results in a case column (copy paste value).

You can breakdown the tariff ($/kWh) into its capital ($/kW-month) and variable cost recovery ($/kWh) portions.

You can prepare all-in capital cost breakdown showing interest cost during construction and does model the impact of project construction delays.

You can show the evolution of capacity and generation (degradation) during the operating period and show other revenues, expenses and balance sheet accounts as they change over time during operation years.

You can show the income & expense statement.

You can show the cash flow statement.

You can show the balance sheet.

You can show the debt service cover ratio (DSCR) as it computes the cash flow available for debt service.

It also computes the benefits to cost ratio (B/C) of the project.

Finally, it computes the other financial ratios such as:

LIQUIDITY RATIOS

SOLVENCY RATIOS

EFFICIENCY RATIOS

PROFITABILITY RATIOS

MARKET PROSPECT RATIOS

 

Download the sample file below:

Model Inputs and Results – Diesel Genset

 

Download the complete demo model for a diesel genset power plant in PHP and USD currencies are shown below:

ADV Diesel Genset Model3 – demo5b

ADV Diesel Genset Model3 (USD) – demo5b

If you have actual data from your OEM and EPC suppliers, kindly share the data with me or simply enter your live data into the above models and see how the results will change immediately before your eyes. Please email me back the updated demo model with your new data so you may share it will all our readers of this blog.

 

To purchase the PHP and USD models at a discount, click the link below:

CI Diesel Genset 50 mw Power Project Finance Model Ver. 3 – in USD and PHP Currency

 

You may place your order now and avail of a package for the unlocked model with free guidance on using it. The list price of the diesel genset model is USD1,400 and I will give you one-hour free for assistance in putting your input data into the model (via telephone or email or FB messenger).

Your energy technology selection expert.

Email me for more details and how to order off-line:

energydataexpert@gmail.com

Visit our on-line digital store to order on-line

www.energydataexpert.com

www.energytechnologyexpert.com

 

 Page 1 of 20  1  2  3  4  5 » ...  Last »