|
<br />"
<br />
<br />J .....
<br />
<br />.- ~.-._..,'
<br />
<br />SUSCQptlbl~' tu O~.rll~Y~.
<br />
<br />DISADVANTAGES: EngIne cornpr~5bor loc~ted on landfIll site with
<br />definite pericdic lII~~intenc<nce reqLllrements. To establish
<br />u~interruptpd gas supply would require a second backup engine
<br />compressor.
<br />
<br />OPTION #3; IDirect sale of power to utility) This optiori is open
<br />to a large size rang~ pf equipment. At current quotedC~ites, a
<br />return of #.0236/kWh comblned demand and energy charge can be
<br />expected assuming the generators are operated at 90% "on line"
<br />time. Maintenance would be approximately $.OI25/kWh and
<br />therefore Y2O'..ly return would be e::pected to be $97.24n:W year.
<br />Cost of this type Gi equipment depending upon size would be
<br />expected to run betweerl $450/~~W ~nd 5700/kW. Land~ill
<br />development costs and site preparation would be expected to add
<br />around another SI00/kw.
<br />
<br />ADVANTAGES; Ttlis option would provide a very simple
<br />~irlimal risk. No irlvolvemEnt with outside buyers
<br />utilty is' necessary. SOfTIE possibility of low
<br />generators exists whictl ~Jould ~dd to the -feasibility_
<br />
<br />project with
<br />beyond the
<br />cost large
<br />
<br />D I St-~I)\/HI-JT P.GES;
<br />woul'd Pl-o','i de
<br />j ndu.st:r~ i ,;11 p::.~r I,:
<br />.;;\t tr" L-.-tcti ':'e.
<br />
<br />"his option wOllld requlr~ an owner/operator. It
<br />no irlcentive for fUI-ther development of the
<br />Helur-n Gn iIT...c:-stment is not particularly
<br />
<br />OF'iION #4; \T:JO 8'::; ~t'J encllnc gener-Cl.t.ors localed on the landfill
<br />sit<:~ 6'.no e.'per-.::."t2c b':-.' l'JdlteL ~--Jith thE utility lIwheellng" power to
<br />:'!Il:: l'Jdltek pl ::::,.n"l) Thls is 2. InjOiiff,U,r, c:apit3.1 option which wauld
<br />t-'~'''.E- =:il;Ji1 a;-' E;-c.::,r.om.lc '::'~''''-";;lnt;;igE' to tJji..ltE'i;: as in option ~*1. Anoka
<br />Elf?ctric~ s consul tant lias indici~ted t~lat the actual lI~"'IIheel ingll
<br />chal--l;;!LS ;_.)e,uld dn.CJur;'_ t.w S:;.'")07/kl~h.. The chargE for capital
<br />li1,pt-O\:~f(lf::nts 11Ilght b,= e;,:pected 'Lo pLtsh this. cost to near-
<br />S.OI/kwh. The mGdifi~&tion to option #1 would be the addition of
<br />:1 :i:64t,/,TjOn lh ~.;1 ,..?eJ i fig cl-'2rg,::.' ..:;ind the el i mi n.a.t i on of $250 in
<br />pumping cost...
<br />
<br />! i ,",;,=,:= t me;""; t-
<br />
<br />Engii-,f? g~?nel-:i'L~:rr.~ '..._ll th
<br />E..qui piil12nt
<br />b~ilding c,- 2!'clGsul-i~
<br />mi sc. 1 n;::;t-.:'.ll ~,t.i C,iri
<br />
<br />q5S :-I~.:..r-,.jl ing
<br />
<br />Gas field dav210[lin2nt
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />'j:'?4,460
<br />lO!,OOO
<br />5 ~ 00(1
<br />11, l=lC)O
<br />Z,1.20,460
<br />
<br />. e:::ti Hl2.ted}
<br />"
<br />
<br />TotE'.l
<br />
<br />AD'..)t:lt~T;~GES; TI,i~ _ ~~::'C,-'-l IS .;-:t. '.llni..T:u.-'1 C;lpitc.;15'~':;;.:.em ~....ith good
<br />l-t::~;.-.ur-rl ''::',1 jrl\.',,~.::i:,,"c~rri ~rh~'~ C.,pLIO:-: '-t.~i...._"t.ul"'es SImple !n~st.a.llation
<br />~Jl'::'I-, mi nj In:::,] ~-_,:~,=hl'lJ l"':':__~ . J.:.:: !j.;i.3 :"~_\!l~j ing equl p,rler.t is qUl te
<br />=;ll1lple~ .::,uc!lti..:.::orii::..l urllt_. ;'':'';'/ bp c,JcE.d with fu.rther l~a.s field
<br />
<br />d'::"'.'.::z-l o;"IlTIl::'r.-t. ..
<br />
<br />:..' I (;~L'JH~JT~J3ES;
<br />
<br />l:,,:?I-lc'l- :.-.~_.i 0n .,::qui pfnerlt
<br />...- G r- W ~\ 1 ~ Eo t 'L Ci Hi a 1 n t ~. i rl .
<br />
<br />IG~3teJ on l~ndfill
<br />t~o USE1- ul hEco.t
<br />
<br />will be
<br />recovery
<br />
<br />Il.or~ di.fficul'l
<br />
<br />/
<br />
|