CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSION
B.4 Performance test at Matla power station
At Matla power station 3 (three) throat types were tested and compared. It was comparing the Babcock (6B) and South Western Corporation (1A) Rotating Throats with an original stationary throat (1C). The findings are summarised as follow:
• RTA installed mills showed a higher mill differential pressure than stationary throats • RTA mills showed a higher clean air curve
• Mill Power Consumption for the SWC RTA were the same • Mill Power Consumption for the Babcock RTA was ± 5% less
• Rejects on the RTA fitted mills were less than for the stationary throat • PF Fineness were almost identical in all the tests done
59
APPENDIX C – FINANCIAL MODEL
KRIEL POWER STATION Nominal Rate: 14.0% Data Revision: 0 Project 'Year Zero' 2003
PROJECT ECONOMIC EVALUATION Model Revision: 0
Calculation Base Year 2003
PROJECT NO.:
PROJECT TITLE: ALTERNATIVE:
Discount Rate 1.1400 TAX RATE 30% Benefit to Improve Performance [ RM ] = - Payback Period [ Years ] = 0 Escalation Rate 1.0600 Benefit to Reduce O&M Costs [ RM ] = - Internal Rate of Return = #NUM! NET DISC. RATE 1.0800 Depreciation Period Costs to Implement Project [ RM ] = - Benefit / Cost Ratio = Infinity
Capital : 5 years NET PRESENT VALUE [ RM ] = -
Non-Capital : 1 year BASE : Sent-out Capability = 475 MW / set Overall Efficiency = 34.606% Boiler Input = 1372.587734 MW / set Available Plant Load Factor = 88.00% Year Efficiency UCLF / PCLF Project Project Project Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo ERA Approval Depreciation Project Operating Maintenance Additional Additional Additional Net Benefit ( Cost ) Net Benefit ( Cost ) Cumulative Improvement % Improvement % Implementation Operating Maintenance Replacement Operating Maintenance Amount (for Tax purposes) Tax Cost Cost Energy Energy Energy Operating in Constant 2003 2003 ( Deterioration % ) ( Deterioration % ) Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Nominal [RM] [RM] Savings [RM] Savings [ RM ] Savings [ RM ] [ GWh p.a. ] Benefit [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Rands [ RM ] Value [ RM ] N P V [ RM ] 1991 -12 - - - 0 - - - - - 1992 -11 - - - 0 - - - - - 1993 -10 - - - 0 - - - - - 1994 -9 - - - 0 - - - - - 1995 -8 - - - 0 - - - - - 1996 -7 - - - 0 - - - - - 1997 -6 - - - 0 - - - - - 1998 -5 - - - 0 - - - - - 1999 -4 - - - 0 - - - - - 2000 -3 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2001 -2 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2002 -1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2003 0 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2004 1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2005 2 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2006 3 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2007 4 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2008 5 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2009 6 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2010 7 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2011 8 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2012 9 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2013 10 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2014 11 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2015 12 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2016 13 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2017 14 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2018 15 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2019 16 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2020 17 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2021 18 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2022 19 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2023 20 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2024 21 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2025 22 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2026 23 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2027 24 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2028 25 - - - - - 0 - - - - -
Rev. No. 0 Date 2008/08/15 Total Project Cost in Nominal Rands (m) : - (ERA Approval Amount) THIS PROJECT IS A FINANCIAL #NUM!
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Future Cash Flows Escalation Factors (CPI) - For Period2003 5.00% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90% 4.90%
EVALUATION RESULTS PRESENT VALUES
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS TAX PARAMETERS
APPENDIX D – FINANCIAL MODEL
GUIDE
PROJECT ECONOMIC EVALUATION MODEL MANUAL
ALWAYS SAVE MASTER DOCUMENT WITH ZERO INPUTS AS REFERENCE SHEET
Notes:
• If it is necessary to retain a copy of any case study, please use the ‘Save As’ function to save a copy to another folder using some variations of the project title!
• All costs in the model are in Rands x 106 and in current Rands.
• All money values must be inputted as current Rand values, irrespective of
whether these are historic (actual) or future costs or benefits. Historic costs
must be recalculated to the current year values, using CPI escalation rates from the “Inflation Data” spreadsheet, before being inputted on the “Main” spreadsheet! • No manual changes should under any circumstances be made in any of the cells
other than those shaded blue in this Workbook!
OVERVIEW:
Enter all the relevant data into the blue shaded cells [‘MAIN’ worksheet]
FOR THE ANTICIPATED PROJECT
• Project title [Cell D4].
• Project Year Zero (Y0) [Cell S1] - Ensure that the first year of expenditure becomes Year 1 [Column B].
• Evaluation Base Year [Cell S2] - this will always be the current year (the year in which the evaluation is carried out).
• Project Number [Cell S3] - Enter NKR XXX for R&E projects and GKR YYY for Capital Projects.
• Project Alternative to identify all alternatives considered [Cell C4].
• Efficiency Improvement or (Deterioration) [Cell C15:C52] - Anticipated after project Implementation. Expressed in percentage points in terms of the Rankine Cycle efficiency.
• Unit availability Improvement or (Deterioration) [Cell D15:D52] - Anticipated after project implementation. In terms of percentage points of the unit’s capacity.
• Project Implementation Cost [Cell E15:E52] - To include all costs (Project Management fees for example. The capital needed to realise the project plus all future costs for replacement/refurbishment.
• Project Operating Cost [Cell F15:F52] - Direct Operating Costs relating to this project. Total operating costs associated with the project.
• Project Maintenance Cost [Cell G15:G52] - Capture all maintenance costs for the lifecycle of the project. Maintenance costs projected for this project, total cash flow to be considered.
• Project Revision Number [Cell C55].
TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO
• Status Quo Replacement Cost [Cell H15:H52] - Cost to replace the current system on a 1 to 1 basis at the time it cannot be deferred any more (current operating regime).
• Status Quo Operating Cost [Cell I15:I52] - Operating Cost relating to the current system.
• Status Quo Maintenance Cost [Cell K15:K52] - Maintenance Cost relating to the current system.
EXPLANATION ON METHODOLOGY USED FOR THE FINANCIAL MODEL'S CALCULATIONS
Column Output
K ERA Project Cost amounts in nominal Rands ("Rands of the year") - The Total
Project approval amount is reflected in Cell K55.
L Depreciation on Project expenditure - Capital Projects are depreciated over 5
years – Non capital tax benefit in the year of the expenditure
M Tax savings due to implementation of the project - calculated on total cash flow
difference between the project (including performance benefits) and maintaining the status quo.
N Operating projected cost savings stemming from the project which will result in a
possible reduction in future budgets. Calculated value – Column ‘I’ – Column ‘F’.
O Maintenance projected cost savings stemming from the project which will result
in a possible reduction in future budgets ( Calculated value, = Column'J' - Column'G')
P Additional energy produced as a result of improvements in efficiency and/or
UCLF/PCLF stemming from implementation of the project.
Q Additional cash inflow due to the increased energy output reflected in Column P.
R Additional costs incurred to generate the increased output reflected in Column P
S Net cash inflow/outflow per annum stemming from the implementation of the
project.
T Present Value per annum of the amounts reflected in Column S.
63
APPENDIX E – RTA FINANCIAL MODEL
KRI EL PO WER STATI O N Nominal Rate: 14.0% Data Revision: 0 Project 'Year Zero' 2003
PROJECT ECONO MIC EV A LUA TION Model Revision: 0
Calculation Base Year 2003
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT TITLE: Rotating Throat Assembly ALTERNATIVE:
Discount Rate 1.1400 TAX RATE 30% Benefit to Improve Performance [ RM ] = 0.001 Payback Period [ Years ] = 1 Escalation Rate 1.0600 Benefit to Reduce O&M Costs [ RM ] = 0.181 Internal Rate of Return = 27.508% NET DISC. RATE 1.0800 Depreciation Period Costs to Implement Project [ RM ] = 0.093 Benefit / Cost Ratio = 1.959
Capital : 5 years NET PRESENT VALUE [ RM ] = 0.089 Non-Capital : 1 year
BASE : Sent-out Capability = 475 MW / set Overall Efficiency = 34.606% Boiler Input = 1372.587734 MW / set Available Plant Load Factor = 88.00% Year Efficiency UCLF / PCLF Project Project Project Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo ERA Approval Depreciation Project Operating Maintenance Additional Additional Additional Net Benefit ( Cost ) Net Benefit ( Cost ) Cumulative
Improvement % Improvement % Implementation Operating Maintenance Replacement Operating Maintenance Amount (for Tax purposes) Tax Cost Cost Energy Energy Energy Operating in Constant 2003 2003 ( Deterioration % ) ( Deterioration % ) Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Nominal [RM] [RM] Savings [RM] Savings [ RM ] Savings [ RM ] [ GWh p.a. ] Benefit [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Rands [ RM ] Value [ RM ] N P V [ RM ]
1991 -12 - - - 0 - - - - - 1992 -11 - - - 0 - - - - - 1993 -10 - - - 0 - - - - - 1994 -9 - - - 0 - - - - - 1995 -8 - - - 0 - - - - - 1996 -7 - - - 0 - - - - - 1997 -6 - - - 0 - - - - - 1998 -5 - - - 0 - - - - - 1999 -4 - - - 0 - - - - - 2000 -3 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2001 -2 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2002 -1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2003 0 0.000% 0.125 0.001 0.125 - 0.000 - (0.001) 0 0.000 0.000 (0.126) (0.126) (0.126) 2004 1 0.000% 0.001 0.145 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.153 0.141 0.016 2005 2 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.007 0.022 2006 3 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.006 0.028 2007 4 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.006 0.034 2008 5 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.005 0.039 2009 6 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.005 0.044 2010 7 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.005 0.049 2011 8 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.004 0.053 2012 9 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.004 0.057 2013 10 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.004 0.060 2014 11 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.003 0.064 2015 12 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.003 0.067 2016 13 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.003 0.070 2017 14 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.003 0.072 2018 15 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.075 2019 16 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.077 2020 17 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.079 2021 18 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.081 2022 19 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.083 2023 20 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.085 2024 21 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.002 0.086 2025 22 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001 0.088 2026 23 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001 0.089 2027 24 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001 0.090 2028 25 0.000% 0.001 0.012 - - (0.003) - 0.011 0 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.001 0.091
Rev. No. 0 Date 2008/12/04 Total Project Cost in Nominal Rands (m) : 0.125(ERA Approval Amount) THIS PROJECT IS A FINANCIAL 'GO'
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Future Cash Flows Escalation Factors (CPI) - For Period2003 5.00% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90% 4.90%
EVALUATION RESULTS PRESENT VALUES
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS TAX PARAMETERS
APPENDIX F – WEAR PLATES
For the financial analysis original OEM wear plates (spider and guides) are compared to new Triton material. The financial impact on each area will be evaluated separately. The financial model is captured in appendix “DD”.
F.1 Efficiency: Because this is a one to one replacement of a component, no efficiency
gains can be claimed.
F.2 UCLF / PCLF Improvement: As the OEM specified wear plates are changed during
every 5 000 hr service intervals; there is no UCLF or PCLF impact.
F.3 Project Implementation Cost: The cost of a set of Triton wear plates is R 18 500.00
and will only be replaced every 25 000 operating hours. A set of shims will be installed every 3 years at a cost of R2 900.00 per set.
F.4 Project Operating Cost: None as the operating of the mill will not change before and
after the installation.
F.5 Project Maintenance Cost: None
F.6 Status Quo Replacement Cost: R16 400.00 for a set of original Bennox wear plates
very 5 000 operating hrs.
F.7 Status Quo Operating Cost: None.
65
KRIEL POWER STATION Nominal Rate: 14.0% Data Revision: 0 Project 'Year Zero' 2003
PROJECT ECONOMIC EVALUATION Model Revision: 0
Calculation Base Year 2003
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT TITLE: Mill wear plates ALTERNATIVE:
Discount Rate 1.1400 TAX RATE 30% Benefit to Improve Performance [ RM ] = - Payback Period [ Years ] = 1 Escalation Rate 1.0600 Benefit to Reduce O&M Costs [ RM ] = 0.145 Internal Rate of Return =706.476% NET DISC. RATE 1.0800 Depreciation Period Costs to Implement Project [ RM ] = 0.038 Cost / Benefit Ratio =3.776
Capital : 5 years NET PRESENT VALUE [ RM ] = 0.107 Non-Capital : 1 year
BASE : Sent-out Capability = 475 MW / set Overall Efficiency = 34.606% Boiler Input = 1372.587734 MW / set Available Plant Load Factor = 88.00% Year Efficiency UCLF / PCLF Project Project Project Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo ERA Approval Depreciation Project Operating Maintenance Additional Additional Additional Net Benefit ( Cost ) Net Benefit ( Cost ) Cumulative
Improvement % Improvement % Implementation Operating Maintenance Replacement Operating Maintenance Amount (for Tax purposes) Tax Cost Cost Energy Energy Energy Operating in Constant 2003 2003 ( Deterioration % ) ( Deterioration % ) Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Nominal [RM] [RM] Savings [RM] Savings [ RM ] Savings [ RM ] [ GWh p.a. ] Benefit [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Rands [ RM ] Value [ RM ] N P V [ RM ]
1991 -12 - - - 0 - - - - - 1992 -11 - - - 0 - - - - - 1993 -10 - - - 0 - - - - - 1994 -9 - - - 0 - - - - - 1995 -8 - - - 0 - - - - - 1996 -7 - - - 0 - - - - - 1997 -6 - - - 0 - - - - - 1998 -5 - - - 0 - - - - - 1999 -4 - - - 0 - - - - - 2000 -3 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2001 -2 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2002 -1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2003 0 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2004 1 0.019 0.016 0.019 - - - - 0 - - (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) 2005 2 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.014 0.012 2006 3 0.003 0.016 - - 0.001 - (0.003) 0 - - 0.014 0.011 0.024 2007 4 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.012 0.036 2008 5 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.011 0.047 2009 6 0.019 0.016 0.025 - - - - 0 - - (0.002) (0.001) 0.045 2010 7 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.010 0.055 2011 8 0.003 0.033 - - 0.001 - (0.003) 0 - - 0.031 0.017 0.072 2012 9 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.008 0.080 2013 10 0.019 0.016 0.030 - - - - 0 - - (0.002) (0.001) 0.079 2014 11 0.033 - - - - - 0 - - 0.033 0.014 0.093 2015 12 0.003 0.016 - - 0.001 - (0.003) 0 - - 0.014 0.006 0.099 2016 13 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.006 0.105 2017 14 0.019 0.016 0.036 - - - - 0 - - (0.002) (0.001) 0.104 2018 15 0.033 - - - - - 0 - - 0.033 0.010 0.114 2019 16 0.003 0.016 - - 0.001 - (0.003) 0 - - 0.014 0.004 0.118 2020 17 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.004 0.123 2021 18 0.019 0.033 0.044 - - - - 0 - - 0.014 0.004 0.126 2022 19 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.004 0.130 2023 20 0.003 0.016 - - 0.001 - (0.003) 0 - - 0.014 0.003 0.133 2024 21 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.003 0.137 2025 22 0.019 0.033 0.053 - - - - 0 - - 0.014 0.003 0.139 2026 23 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.003 0.142 2027 24 0.016 - - - - - 0 - - 0.016 0.003 0.145 2028 25 0.000 - - - - - 0 - - - - 0.145
Rev. No. 0 Date 2008/08/15 Total Project Cost in Nominal Rands (m) : 0.206(ERA Approval Amount) THIS PROJECT IS A FINANCIAL 'GO'
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Future Cash Flows Escalation Factors (CPI) - For Period2003 5.00% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90% 4.90%
EVALUATION RESULTS PRESENT VALUES
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS TAX PARAMETERS
APPENDIX G – CLASSIFIER CONE
For the financial analysis the newly modified classifier cone will be compared to the original OEM classifier cone. The financial model follows all the inputs.G.1 Efficiency Improvement: None
G.2 UCLF/PCLF Improvement:
• Assume 2 incidents of 18 hrs each will be prevented per year. This is to shut down a mill and clean the gladiator skirt
• UCLF improvement = (2A x 100G x 18B) / (100 x 24C x 475D x 365E x 0.9F)
= 0.00096% A – 2 Incidents per year on the specific mill B – 18 hrs per incident to clean the gladiator skirt C – 24 hrs / day
D – 475MW load loss if a mill is out of service E – 365 days / year
F – 90% availability of the generating unit
G to A mill contributes 100MW’s to the production process
G.3 Project Implementation Cost:
• The cost of a classifier cone is R47 164.00
G.4 Project Operating Cost:
• None
G.5 Project Maintenance Cost:
• Replacement of the cone every 8 years (with a ring change). This is 60 000 hrs at a mill running factor of 0.72
G.6 Status Quo Replacement Cost:
• Same as for modification – R40 000.00
G.7 Status Quo Operating Cost:
• None
G.8 Status Quo Maintenance Cost:
• Replacement of the cone every 8 years (with a ring change). This is 60 000 hrs at a mill running factor of 0.72
67
KRIEL POWER STATION Nominal Rate: 14.0% Data Revision: 0 Project 'Year Zero' 2003
PROJECT ECONOMIC EVALUATION Model Revision: 0
Calculation Base Year 2003
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT TITLE: Classifier cone modification ALTERNATIVE: Discount Rate 1.1400 TAX RATE 30% Benefit to Improve Performance [ RM ] = 0.148 Payback Period [ Years ] = 1 Escalation Rate 1.0600 Benefit to Reduce O&M Costs [ RM ] = 0.059 Internal Rate of Return =96.164% NET DISC. RATE 1.0800 Depreciation Period Costs to Implement Project [ RM ] = 0.059 Cost / Benefit Ratio =3.487
Capital : 5 years NET PRESENT VALUE [ RM ] = 0.147 Non-Capital : 1 year
BASE : Sent-out Capability = 475 MW / set Overall Efficiency = 34.606% Boiler Input = 1372.587734 MW / set Available Plant Load Factor = 88.00% Year Efficiency UCLF / PCLF Project Project Project Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo ERA Approval Depreciation Project Operating Maintenance Additional Additional Additional Net Benefit ( Cost ) Net Benefit ( Cost ) Cumulative
Improvement % Improvement % Implementation Operating Maintenance Replacement Operating Maintenance Amount (for Tax purposes) Tax Cost Cost Energy Energy Energy Operating in Constant 2003 2003 ( Deterioration % ) ( Deterioration % ) Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Nominal [RM] [RM] Savings [RM] Savings [ RM ] Savings [ RM ] [ GWh p.a. ] Benefit [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Rands [ RM ] Value [ RM ] N P V [ RM ]
1991 -12 - - - 0 - - - - - 1992 -11 - - - 0 - - - - - 1993 -10 - - - 0 - - - - - 1994 -9 - - - 0 - - - - - 1995 -8 - - - 0 - - - - - 1996 -7 - - - 0 - - - - - 1997 -6 - - - 0 - - - - - 1998 -5 - - - 0 - - - - - 1999 -4 - - - 0 - - - - - 2000 -3 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2001 -2 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2002 -1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2003 0 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2004 1 0.001% 0.047 0.050 - (0.007) - - 0 0.022 - (0.032) (0.030) (0.030) 2005 2 0.001% 0.040 - - (0.006) - - 0 0.021 - 0.055 0.047 0.017 2006 3 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.019 - 0.015 0.012 0.029 2007 4 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.019 - 0.015 0.011 0.040 2008 5 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.019 - 0.015 0.010 0.050 2009 6 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.019 - 0.015 0.009 0.059 2010 7 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.019 - 0.015 0.009 0.068 2011 8 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.008 0.076 2012 9 0.001% 0.047 0.002 0.072 - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - (0.032) (0.016) 0.060 2013 10 0.001% 0.040 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.055 0.026 0.086 2014 11 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.006 0.092 2015 12 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.006 0.098 2016 13 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.006 0.104 2017 14 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.005 0.109 2018 15 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.005 0.114 2019 16 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.004 0.118 2020 17 0.001% 0.047 0.002 0.106 - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - (0.032) (0.009) 0.110 2021 18 0.001% 0.040 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.055 0.014 0.123 2022 19 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.004 0.127 2023 20 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.003 0.130 2024 21 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.003 0.133 2025 22 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.003 0.136 2026 23 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.003 0.138 2027 24 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.002 0.141 2028 25 0.001% 0.002 - - (0.006) - 0.002 0 0.020 - 0.015 0.002 0.143
Rev. No. 0 Date 2008/08/15 Total Project Cost in Nominal Rands (m) : 0.228(ERA Approval Amount) THIS PROJECT IS A FINANCIAL 'GO'
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Future Cash Flows Escalation Factors (CPI) - For Period2003 5.00% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90% 4.90%
EVALUATION RESULTS PRESENT VALUES
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS TAX PARAMETERS
APPENDIX H – BALL LOADING
SYSTEM
For the financial analysis original hydro pneumatic loading cylinders are compared with airbags. The financial model follows all the inputs.
The present system is expensive to maintain and labour intensive. The life expectancy of 2 years is relatively poor in today's technologically advanced environment. 43 000 operating hours has been achieved and this will be used as 100% life for a set of airbags.
H.1 Efficiency Improvement: None
H.2 UCLF / PCLF Improvement: None
H.3 Project Implementation Cost:
• The cost of an airbag will be R12 722.00 per loading cylinder • The commissioning cost will be R2 106 per mill
• Total cost = 8 x 12 722 + 2 106
= R102 982.00
H.4 Project Operating Cost:
• Nitrogen costs per year = R6 25.00
H.5 Project Maintenance Cost: The airbags will need to be replaced every 6 years.
H.6 Status Quo Replacement Cost:
• R12 200 for a barrel replacement in 2005.
H.7 Status Quo Operating Cost:
Nitrogen costs per year = R6 525.00
Oil costs per year = R 12 132.00 (will be a saving on the airbags as they operate without the usage of oil).
Total = R 18 657.00
H.8 Status Quo Maintenance Cost:
• R2 800.00 per cylinder per year = 8 x R8 800.00
69
KRIEL POWER STATION Nominal Rate: 14.0% Data Revision: 0 Project 'Year Zero' 2003
PROJECT ECONOMIC EVALUATION Model Revision: 0
Calculation Base Year 2003
PROJECT NO:
PROJECT TITLE: Airbags ALTERNATIVE:
Discount Rate 1.1400 TAX RATE 30% Benefit to Improve Performance [ RM ] = - Payback Period [ Years ] = 1 Escalation Rate 1.0600 Benefit to Reduce O&M Costs [ RM ] = 0.529 Internal Rate of Return =123.428% NET DISC. RATE 1.0800 Depreciation Period Costs to Implement Project [ RM ] = 0.161 Cost / Benefit Ratio =3.289
Capital : 5 years NET PRESENT VALUE [ RM ] = 0.368 Non-Capital : 1 year
BASE : Sent-out Capability = 475 MW / set Overall Efficiency = 34.606% Boiler Input = 1372.587734 MW / set Available Plant Load Factor = 88.00% Year Efficiency UCLF / PCLF Project Project Project Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo ERA Approval Depreciation Project Operating Maintenance Additional Additional Additional Net Benefit ( Cost ) Net Benefit ( Cost ) Cumulative
Improvement % Improvement % Implementation Operating Maintenance Replacement Operating Maintenance Amount (for Tax purposes) Tax Cost Cost Energy Energy Energy Operating in Constant 2003 2003 ( Deterioration % ) ( Deterioration % ) Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Nominal [RM] [RM] Savings [RM] Savings [ RM ] Savings [ RM ] [ GWh p.a. ] Benefit [ RM ] Cost [ RM ] Rands [ RM ] Value [ RM ] N P V [ RM ]
1991 -12 - - - 0 - - - - - 1992 -11 - - - 0 - - - - - 1993 -10 - - - 0 - - - - - 1994 -9 - - - 0 - - - - - 1995 -8 - - - 0 - - - - - 1996 -7 - - - 0 - - - - - 1997 -6 - - - 0 - - - - - 1998 -5 - - - 0 - - - - - 1999 -4 - - - 0 - - - - - 2000 -3 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2001 -2 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2002 -1 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2003 0 - - - - - 0 - - - - - 2004 1 0.103 0.007 0.019 0.070 0.108 - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - (0.045) (0.042) (0.042) 2005 2 0.007 0.012 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.070 0.060 0.018 2006 3 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.046 0.064 2007 4 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.043 0.107 2008 5 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.039 0.146 2009 6 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.036 0.183 2010 7 0.103 0.007 0.103 0.019 0.070 0.144 - 0.006 0.012 (0.033) 0 - - (0.117) (0.068) 0.114 2011 8 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.031 0.145 2012 9 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.029 0.174 2013 10 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.027 0.201 2014 11 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.025 0.226 2015 12 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.023 0.249 2016 13 0.103 0.007 0.103 0.019 0.070 0.191 - 0.006 0.012 (0.033) 0 - - (0.117) (0.043) 0.206 2017 14 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.020 0.226 2018 15 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.018 0.244 2019 16 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.017 0.261 2020 17 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.016 0.276 2021 18 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.014 0.291 2022 19 0.103 0.007 0.103 0.019 0.070 0.255 - 0.006 0.012 (0.033) 0 - - (0.117) (0.027) 0.264 2023 20 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.012 0.276 2024 21 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.011 0.287 2025 22 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.011 0.298 2026 23 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.010 0.308 2027 24 0.007 0.019 0.070 - - (0.025) 0.012 0.070 0 - - 0.058 0.009 0.317 2028 25 0.007 0.103 0.019 0.070 - - 0.006 0.012 (0.033) 0 - - (0.014) (0.002) 0.315
Rev. No. 0 Date 2008/08/15 Total Project Cost in Nominal Rands (m) : 0.698(ERA Approval Amount) THIS PROJECT IS A FINANCIAL 'GO'
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Future Cash Flows Escalation Factors (CPI) - For Period2003 5.00% 4.80% 4.80% 4.80% 4.90% 4.90%
EVALUATION RESULTS PRESENT VALUES
ECONOMIC PARAMETERS TAX PARAMETERS