Laserfiche WebLink
<br />91 <br /> <br /> <br />j' <br /> <br />the proces.scompar Isons e 11m I natadOpt Ion ;1 lat 2,500gpm f'rom further <br />consIderatIon because makeup softenIng was not 'needed for the 2,500 gpm 81g <br />Sandy f low cond I t Ion. Opt Ion I V, wh I chu'ses 2,500 gpm of Big Sandyf I ow for <br />blended coolIng tower makeup with no treatment was added. <br /> <br />Appra I sa I I ev'e I cost estImates weredeve loped for' the rema I n Ing process <br />optIons. An economIc model was developed to compare total annual levellzed <br />costs for each opt Ion, based on cap I tal, operat Ing ,and ma I ntenance cost <br />I nputs. Base case economIc compar I'sons o.f the process opt lon's were deve loped <br />and are shown on Table ES-1. OptIons II, III and IV were evaluated ona basis <br />of thel r I ncrementa I cost above OptIon I. <br /> <br />TABLE ES-l <br /> <br />OPTIONS II, I II & IV ANNUAL LEVELIZED COST SUMMARY <br /> <br />(January, 1984 Dollars In Thousands) <br /> <br />Option II III IV <br />BIg Sandy Flow (gpm) 7500 5000 7500 5000 2500 2500 <br />O&M 3556 2643 2811 13:51 972 447 <br />CapItal 5529 4641 2672 1661 882 147 <br />Power 773 694 572 547 544 536 <br />Total 9857 7978 6055 3545 2378 1130 <br /> <br />The results of the base case economIc comparIsons showed that OptIon II was <br />not cost competItive wIth Options III and IV. Option II was elimInated from <br />further cons I derat Ion. The cost components of cap ita I, chern I ca I s, power and <br />other operatIon and maIntenance (O&M) for OptIons III and IV are shown <br />graphically on FIgure ES-l. <br /> <br />An economic sensItivity analysIs was performed to evaluate Options '" and IV <br />for the varIables of capItal, total operatIng and maintenance costs and power <br />costs for ranges of 75% to 150% of base case va I ues. From the resu I ts of the <br />economIc and sensitIvity analysIs a comparIson of annual level Ized cost per <br />ton per year of sa I t remova I from the Co I orado River system was made for <br />OptIons "I and IV. The resu I ts of th Is compar Ison are shown on, Figure ES-2 <br />for the base case and 150% of cap Ita I, O&M and power costs. <br /> <br />OptIon III at 5,000 gpm and Option IV at 2.500 gpm were the two most cost <br />effectIve process optIons, based on the economIc, sensItivIty and salt removal <br />comparisons. A further evaluatIon of operatIng and maIntenance rIsks of these <br />options versus the quantity of salt removed resulted In the selectJon of <br />OptIon I II at 5,000 gpm of BIg Sandy flow for the fInal process configuration. <br />The results of the selection process are shown on Table ES-2. A f,low dIagram <br />for the selected optIon Is shown on Figure ES-3. <br /> <br />The selection of sldestream softening raised the Issues of startup and <br />operating problems experIenced by other power plants wIth the technology, and <br />uncertaIntIes In chemIcal usage and labor requIrements. A survey of three <br />power plants and two process IndustrIes usIng sldestream softeners showed that <br />these type of uncertainties had been experIenced, but each user had been able <br /> <br />ES-2 <br /> <br />~03n98 <br /> <br />.L <br />