DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of the Taylorville Energy Center's Facility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of the Taylorville Energy Center's Facility REVIEW OF THE TAYLORVILLE ENERGY CENTER’S FACILITY COST REPORT PRESENTED TO THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION BY BOSTON PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. AND MPR ASSOCIATES, INC. Boston Pacific Company, Inc. MPR Associates, Inc. Craig R. Roach, Ph.D. Jim Bubb, P.E. [email protected] [email protected] 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 490 East 320 King Street, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 296-5520 (703) 519-0200 June 8, 2010 BOSTON PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................TAB 1 TASK 1 REPORT – A BACKGROUND REVIEW OF IGCC AND CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION PROJECTS TO DATE .............................................TAB 2 TASK 2 REPORT – AN ASSESSMENT OF TAYLORVILLE’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE ILLINOIS CLEAN COAL PORTFOLIO STANDARD LAW .........................TAB 3 TASK 3 REPORT – ASSESSMENT OF REASONABLENESS OF CAPITAL COSTS AND OPERATION COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED TAYLORVILLE ENERGY CENTER ................................................................................................................TAB 4 TASK 4 REPORT – ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL FOR THE TAYLORVILLE ENERGY CENTER TO COME ON-LINE AS PLANNED AND WITHIN THE PROPOSED TIMEFRAME ...................................................................................................TAB 5 TASK 5 REPORT – AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ABILITY TO FINANCE THE TAYLORVILLE FACILITY ..................................................................................................TAB 6 TASK 6 REPORT – A COMPARISON OF TAYLORVILLE ELECTRICITY COSTS WITH THOSE OF OTHER GENERATION OPTIONS AND AN ASSESSMENT OF TAYLORVILLE’S EFFECT ON OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS ....................................................................................................................TAB 7 TASK 7 REPORT – AN ANALYSIS OF THE LONG-TERM RATE IMPACTS OF TAYLORVILLE ON ILLINOIS CONSUMERS ...................................................................TAB 8 CONFIDENTIAL WORK PAPERS ......................................................................................TAB 9 i ABOUT BOSTON PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. Boston Pacific is a consulting and investment services firm, located in Washington, D.C., specializing in the electricity and natural gas industries. For 23 years we have provided information and insight to our clients who span the full range of stakeholders: state regulatory commissions, regional transmission organizations, energy consumers, competitive power producers, electric utilities, gas pipeline companies, and electric transmission companies. We are nationally recognized experts on the electricity business as documented by our service as expert witnesses throughout North America. Boston Pacific also is an industry leader in monitoring major power procurements for State Commissions across the country. And for six years we have advised the Board of Directors of the Southwest Power Pool RTO on its full range of issues. As to the specific issues addressed herein, Boston Pacific has substantial experience with and expertise in Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) projects. Most recently, we served as an independent advisor to the Mississippi Public Service Commission on the proposed Kemper County IGCC Project; the Mississippi Commission just set the ground rules for moving forward with Kemper. We are also currently serving as market or financial advisors to the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program on a range of technologies including gasification projects. Additionally, we have previously evaluated an IGCC project in the Northwest for the Oregon Public Utility Commission. For more information on Boston Pacific please visit us at www.bostonpacific.com ABOUT MPR ASSOCIATES, INC. MPR Associates is an employee-owned engineering services firm founded in 1964 and has provided engineering services relating to the design and operation of electric generating stations since its inception. MPR has a staff of over 200 persons located at our headquarters office in Alexandria, Virginia and other offices in Houston, TX, East Lyme, CT and Albany, NY. MPR clients include the world’s leading energy companies and financial institutions as well as various U.S. government agencies. MPR has a long history supporting the development, construction and operation of large power projects and has also supported the evaluation and development of gasification technologies and projects. We have an extensive background in commercial due diligence for project, project portfolio and corporate acquisitions. MPR has performed technical and commercial reviews for literally hundreds of energy and process facilities for commercial and government clients and have advised clients on purchase or financing of assets valued at well over $30 billion. More information about MPR Associates can be found at our website: www.mpr.com ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REVIEW OF THE TAYLORVILLE ENERGY CENTER’S FACILITY COST REPORT PRESENTED TO THE ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION BY BOSTON PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. AND MPR ASSOCIATES, INC. Boston Pacific Company, Inc. MPR Associates, Inc. Craig R. Roach, Ph.D. Jim Bubb, P.E. [email protected] [email protected] 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 490 East 320 King Street, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 296-5520 (703) 519-0200 June 8, 2010 BOSTON PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1 A. Key Substantive Requirements of the Illinois Clean Coal Law .......................................... 2 B. Key features of the Taylorville proposal ............................................................................. 3 II. CAN THE TAYLORVILLE FACILITY BE BUILT WITHIN THE SCHEDULE AND BUDGET PRESENTED IN THE FACILITY COST REPORT? ........................................... 5 A. Construction Schedule ......................................................................................................... 5 B. Capital Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................... 5 C. Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimate ........................................................................ 7 D. Fuel Supply Estimate ........................................................................................................... 8 III. WILL THE TAYLORVILLE FACILITY PERFORM AS PLANNED? ............................... 9 A. Facility Performance ............................................................................................................ 9 B. Reliability and Availability ................................................................................................ 11 C. Environmental Performance .............................................................................................. 12 D. Power Deliverability .......................................................................................................... 13 E. Hybrid vs. Conventional Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle .................................. 13 IV. HOW MUCH WILL ILLINOIS CONSUMERS BE CHARGED FOR ELECTRICITY FROM TAYLORVILLE? ..................................................................................................... 15 A. Capital Revenue Requirement ........................................................................................... 15 B. Total Net Revenue Requirement ........................................................................................ 16 V. WHAT ARE THE RISKS WITH TAYLORVILLE AND WHO BEARS THEM? ............. 18 A. Natural Gas Price and Carbon Regulation Risk ................................................................. 18 B. Capital Cost Overrun and Escalation Risk ......................................................................... 20 C. Operating Performance and Cost Risk ............................................................................... 20 D. Combination of Risks ........................................................................................................ 21 E. Implications of Risk ........................................................................................................... 22 VI. HOW DOES TAYLORVILLE’S PRICE FOR ELECTRICITY COMPARE TO THAT FROM OTHER NEW POWER PLANTS? ........................................................................... 24 VII. WILL TAYLORVILLE’S PROPOSAL COMPLY WITH THE ILLINOIS CLEAN COAL LAW? .................................................................................................................................... 26 A. Prudent and Reasonable? ................................................................................................... 26 B. Rate Impact Limit Met? ..................................................................................................... 26 C. At least a 50% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions? .................................................... 27 i BOSTON PACIFIC COMPANY, INC. D. A nameplate capacity of 500 MW or more? ...................................................................... 27 E. Uses primarily coal? .......................................................................................................... 27 F. Initial Clean Coal Facility provides 5% of Illinois power? ............................................... 27 G. Pass through revenue and financing benefits? ..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy & the Environment: a Way Forward for Coal
    Energy & the Environment: A way forward for coal - the Kemper project Ed Holland Mississippi Power President and CEO October 9, 2014 Kemper: 582-MW Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle facility with pre-combustion carbon capture How it works: Fully Integrated Design Liberty Mine Zero Liquid discharge: Process Water Output Byproducts Kemper: Redefining Energy Sustainability 25% Coal 75% • Fuel diversity Natural Gas • Fuel price stability • Secure, reliable power 2020 energy mix without Kemper • Zero liquid discharge 20% 25%Coal 20% • Captured carbon used in enhanced Coal Lignite oil recovery 60% • Byproduct revenue Natural Gas * Includes unit retirement and fuel switch announcements (7/4/14) 2020 energy mix with Kemper * CO2 Utilization – Commodity not Waste Kemper: Why it works in Mississippi • Lignite mine mouth – 31,000 acre mine site • Enhanced oil recovery – 60 mile CO2 Pipeline for EOR • Meridian treated effluent – 30 miles of treated effluent pipeline • Transmission – 70 new miles • Off Gulf Coast – 80% Current Generation on Gulf Coast Safety • Industry leaders in maintaining a safe workplace – through every area of the company • .54 Project Recordable Incident Rate – 3-5 times safer than Construction Industry Average • 28 Million Man-hours – 14,000 FTE for a year Economic Benefits • $1 Billion in Mississippi contracts • 12,000 direct and indirect jobs • 500 Mississippi companies • 500 permanent employees • $75 Million state and local taxes during construction • $30 Million state and local taxes annually in operation Project Current Status Construction • Essentially complete except for heat tracing & insulation. Support for startup and operations now through COD Startup • Gasifier first-fire is expected in the 4th quarter. Operations • Plant staff at 173, planning for 220 by COD.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal Power Plant Repowering Project in Thailand Project Design Document】
    【参考 6 Thermal Power Plant Repowering Project in Thailand Project Design Document】 Project Design Document for Thermal Power Plant Repowering Project in Thailand February 2003 165 CONTENTS A. General description of project activity..........................................................................167 B. Baseline methodology ..................................................................................................171 C. Duration of the project activity / Crediting period........................................................174 D. Monitoring methodology and plan ...............................................................................175 E. Calculations of GHG emissions by sources..................................................................179 F. Environmental impacts .................................................................................................183 G. Stakeholders comments ................................................................................................184 166 A. General description of project activity A.1 Title of the project activity Y Thermal Power Plant Repowering Project. A.2 Description of the project activity: Outline of the Project The Y Power Plant is the largest power plant in Thailand. It has total output capacity of 3,680MW. This output accounts more than 20% of the total electric power output capacity of Thailand. Both of its unit #1 and unit #2 each has an output of 550MW and they went into operation in 1983 and 1984, respectively. The amount of power generation to
    [Show full text]
  • COVER SHEET May 2010
    COVER SHEET May 2010 LEAD AGENCY COOPERATING AGENCY U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) TITLE LOCATION Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle Kemper County, Mississippi (IGCC) Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0409) CONTACTS Additional copies or information concerning this Draft EIS can be obtained from Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15236-0940. Telephone: 412-386-6065. E-mail: Kemper- [email protected]. For general information on DOE’s NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest, Washington, DC, 20585-0001. Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a toll-free message at 1-800-472-2756. ABSTRACT This Final EIS assesses the potential environmental impacts that would result from a proposed DOE action to provide cost-shared funding and possibly a loan guarantee for construction and operation of advanced power generation plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. The project was selected under DOE’s Clean Coal Power Initiative to demonstrate IGCC technology. DOE also invited Mississippi Power Company to submit an application for the Kemper County IGCC Project to the Loan Guarantee Program during 2008. Assessment of a prospective loan guarantee is currently in progress. The power genera- tion components (i.e., coal gasifiers, synthesis gas [syngas] cleanup systems, combined-cycle unit, and supporting infrastructure) would convert coal into syngas to drive gas combustion turbines, and hot exhaust gas from the gas turbines would generate steam from water to drive a steam turbine.
    [Show full text]
  • COPELAND COOK TAYLOR & BUSH Gg
    COPELAND COOK TAYLOR & JOHN H. GEARY, JR. 601.427.1461 BUSH [email protected] July 24, 2015 Katherine Collier Executive Secretary/MSPSC gg Woolfolk State Office Building \08 501 North West Street, Suite 201A g\ O Jackson, Mississippi 39201 RE: Notice of Intent of Mississippi Power Company for a Change in Rates Supported by a Conventional Rate Filing or, in the Alternative, by a Rate Mitigation Plan in Connection with the Kemper County IGCC Project Docket No. 2015-UN-80 Dear Ms. Collier: Greenleaf CO2 Solutions, LLC filed today, electronically, a Motion to Dismiss in the above styled Docket. Enclosed please find the original and twelve (12) copies of this Motion. A copy of the first page of the Response is also enclosed. I would appreciate your file-stamping this page and returning it to me in the stamped, addressed envelope. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, H. Geary, Jr. Mr. Virden Jones Shawn Shurden, Esq. Chad Reynolds, Esq. All parties of record JACKSON i RIDGELAND 600 Concourse, Suite 100 1076 Highland Colony Parkway Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157 P.O. Box 6o2o Ridgeland, MS 39158 Tel (601) 856-7200 Fax (601) 8s6-7626 GULF COAST i HATTIESBURG www.copelandcook.com * Electronic Copy * MS Public Service Commission * 7/31/2015 * MS Public Service Commission * Electronic Copy* FILED JUL 2 4 2015 SERVICE BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIOMISS.PUBUC COMMISSION MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 2015-UN-80 EC-120-0097-00 IN RE: NOTICE OF INTENT OF MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY FOR A CHANGE IN RATES SUPPORTED BY A CONVENTIONAL RATE FILING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, BY A RATE MITIGATION PLAN IN CONNECTION WITH THE KEMPER COUNTY IGCC PROJECT MOTION TO DISMISS Pursuant to RP 6.121 of the Public Utilities Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules") of the Mississippi Public Service Commission ("Commission"), Greenleaf CO2 Solutions, LLC ("Greenleaf"), moves to dismiss the above-numbered Docket.
    [Show full text]
  • Kemper IGCC Project November, 2017
    IM Monthly Report Mississippi Public Service Commission Kemper IGCC Project November, 2017 URS Corporation 600 Carondelet Street New Orleans, LA 70130-3587 Tel: 504.586.8111 Fax: 504.522.0554 www.urscorp.com Confidential IM November 2017 Report Mississippi Public Service Commission Kemper IGCC Project Executive Summary URS Corporation (URS), later acquired by AECOM, was requested by the Mississippi Public Service Commission (MPSC) to provide Independent Monitoring services for the Kemper Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Project located in Kemper County, MS. The scope of services includes monthly reporting by URS (AECOM) and its subcontractors, the Independent Monitor (IM), of the status and prudency of the on-going engineering, procurement, construction and startup activities performed by Mississippi Power Company (MPC or the Company), its parent Southern Company and subsidiary Southern Company Services (SCS), and its subcontractors on the project. This IM Monthly Report provides the results of this assessment for the reporting period of November, 2017, and review of the project status reported by MPC for the period of September and October, 2017 (September 2017 accounting records and October 2017 PSC Report). During this reporting period, the IM has conducted weekly status review meetings with MPSC staff. Other meetings and reviews were also conducted, as described below (refer to other Report Sections where referenced for more details): November, 2017 – Accounting audit of financial records from end of August, 2017 through end of September, 2017 held at MPC offices in Gulfport, MS (Appendix C). November, 2017 – Daily monitoring of on-going site activities at the jobsite (Appendix E). Project Status through November, 2017 (Unless Noted Otherwise) Engineering - The gasification island design performed by KBR, and the SCS design of the combined cycle island and the balance of plant (BOP) work, is 100% complete for base scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Testimony of Bruce C. Harrington on Behalf of Mississippi Power Company Page 1 of 15
    1 DIRECT TESTIMONY 2 OF 3 BRUCE C. HARRINGTON 4 On Behalf of 5 MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY 6 BEFORE THE MISSISSIPPI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 7 DOCKET NO. 2016-AD-0161 8 9 Q. Would you please state your name, position and business address? 10 A. My name is Bruce C. Harrington. I am the Plant Manager, Kemper County 1 11 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Plant (Kemper Plant or the Plant ) 12 for Mississippi Power Company (MPC or the Company). My business address is 13 5935 Highway 493 P.O. 369, DeKalb, MS. 14 Q. Please describe your education and professional experience. 15 A. I received my Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering and my Masters 16 of Business Administration from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville in 1989 and 17 1991, respectively. I obtained my Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from 18 Carnegie Mellon University in 1996. I have been an employee of Southern Company 19 Services, Inc. (SCS) and MPC for a cumulative fifteen years and have served in a 20 variety of positions of increasing responsibilities in the areas of plant engineering, 1 The Kemper Project Plant is a lignite-fueled solid-fuel base load electric generating plant, comprised of a two- on-one integrated gasification combined cycle with a net summer capacity of 582 megawatts (Plant) and the environmental equipment for the reduction of various emissions from the facility, including but not limited to, equipment and facilities for the capture of approximately 65% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the Plant. Direct Testimony of Bruce C.
    [Show full text]
  • Holy Grail of Carbon Capture Continues to Elude Coal Industry
    Holy Grail of Carbon Capture Continues to Elude Coal Industry November 2018 David Schlissel, Director of Resource Planning Analysis Dennis Wamsted, Associate Editor Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2 Major North American Carbon-Capture Projects ............................................................................. 5 Boundary Dam/SaskPower ................................................................................................................ 5 Petra Nova/NRG Energy .................................................................................................................... 7 Kemper/Southern Co. ........................................................................................................................ 8 Edwardsport/Duke Energy .............................................................................................................. 11 CCS Also Would Require Extensive New Infrastructure to Compress, Transport and Inject Captured CO2 ...................................................................................................................................... 15 The Changing Electricity-Generation Environment ......................................................................... 16 Coal’s Aging-Fleet Problem ............................................................................................................ 17 The Surge in Natural Gas-Fired Generation
    [Show full text]
  • Ksk Energy Ventures Limited
    Preliminary Placement Document Dated June 2, 2014 Subject to Completion Not for Circulation and Strictly Confidential Serial Number: [●] KSK ENERGY VENTURES LIMITED Our Company was incorporated as KSK Energy Ventures Private Limited on February 14, 2001 under the Companies Act, 1956. Pursuant to a special resolution of its shareholders passed on February 9, 2002, our Company was converted into a public limited company and the word “private” was deleted from its name. Our Company became a private limited company pursuant to a special resolution of its shareholders passed on July 3, 2006, and the word “private” was added to its name. Subsequently, pursuant to a special resolution of the shareholders of our Company passed on January 19, 2008, our Company became a public limited company and the word “private” was deleted from its name. The Corporate Identification Number (CIN) of our Company is L45204AP2001PLC057199. or to any other class of investors to purchase the Equity KSK Energy Ventures Limited (the “Company” or the “Issuer” or “KSK”) is issuing [●] equity shares of our Company of a face value of `10 each (the “Equity Shares”) at a price of `[●] per Equity Share (the “Issue Price”), including a premium of `[●] per Equity Share aggregating `[●] (the “Issue”)*. suchoffer, sale orsubscription is notpermitted. ISSUE IN RELIANCE UPON SECTION 42 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, READ WITH RULE 14 OF THE COMPANIES (PROSPECTUS AND ALLOTMENT OF SECURITIES) RULES, 2014 AND CHAPTER VIII OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (ISSUE OF CAPITAL AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS, 2009, AS AMENDED (THE “SEBI REGULATIONS”) THE ISSUE AND DISTRIBUTION OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLACEMENT DOCUMENT IS BEING MADE TO QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYERS (“QIBs”) AS DEFINED UNDER THE SEBI REGULATIONS IN RELIANCE UPON SECTION 42 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, READ WITH RULE 14 OF THE COMPANIES (PROSPECTUS AND ALLOTMENT OF SECURITIES) RULES, 2014 (TOGETHER, THE “PRIVATE PLACEMENT REGULATIONS”) AND CHAPTER VIII OF THE SEBI REGULATIONS.
    [Show full text]
  • Retrofitting Lignite Plants to Improve Efficiency and Performance
    Retrofitting lignite plants to improve efficiency and performance Dr Ian A B Reid CCC/264 April 2016 © IEA Clean Coal Centre Retrofitting lignite plants to improve efficiency and performance Author: Dr Ian A B Reid IEACCC Ref: CCC/264 ISBN: 978–92–9029–587-7 Copyright: © IEA Clean Coal Centre Published Date: April 2016 IEA Clean Coal Centre 14 Northfields London SW18 1DD United Kingdom Telephone: +44(0)20 8877 6280 www.iea-coal.org 2 IEA Clean Coal Centre – Retrofitting lignite plants to improve efficiency and performance Preface This report has been produced by IEA Clean Coal Centre and is based on a survey and analysis of published literature, and on information gathered in discussions with interested organisations and individuals. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. It should be understood that the views expressed in this report are our own, and are not necessarily shared by those who supplied the information, nor by our member countries. IEA Clean Coal Centre is an organisation set up under the auspices of the International Energy Agency (IEA) which was itself founded in 1974 by member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The purpose of the IEA is to explore means by which countries interested in minimising their dependence on imported oil can co-operate. In the field of Research, Development and Demonstration over fifty individual projects have been established in partnership between member countries of the IEA. IEA Clean Coal Centre began in 1975 and has contracting parties and sponsors from: Australia, Austria, China, the European Commission, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, the UK and the USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from CCS Demonstration and Large Pilot Projects
    Lessons Learned from CCS Demonstration and Large Pilot Projects An MIT Energy Initiative Working Paper May 2016 Howard Herzog1* [email protected] *Corresponding Author 1MIT Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT Energy Initiative, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA MITEI-WP-2016-06 Table of Contents Summary 3 Overview 4 Background 5 Review of CCS Demonstration Programs 9 Analysis of Selected CCS Projects 24 Lessons Learned 38 References 43 H. Herzog, 2016 Acknowledgement The Carbon Sequestration Initiative, an industrial consortium housed in the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), has been tracking the progress of large-scale Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) projects for many years.1 The knowledge and data obtained in that project formed the basis of this paper. The original version of this paper was done for the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC). It was one of three white papers for a CURC report entitled “Analysis Of Options For Funding Large Pilot Scale Testing Of Advanced Fossil-Based Power Generation Technologies With Carbon Capture And Storage.” This project was sponsored by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) of Japan. Disclaimer This paper contains significant information about dozens of CCS pilot and demonstration projects worldwide. Every effort was made to be as accurate as possible. However, many of these projects are in a state of flux and the references used are quite varied. Therefore, some of the project details may have changed or be in error. However, any such problems will not change the analyses or findings in this paper. 1 See http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index.html 2 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants.Cdr
    eBook Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants of India List of Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants of India and their location Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants Volume 1(2017) The following eBook contains names and locations of all the Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants of India. Questions on Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants are very common in Bank/Government exams. Here’s a sample question: In which state is the Tenughat Thermal Power Station located? a. Karnataka b. Gujarat c. Jharkhand d. Assam Answer: C Every mark counts and learning the following eBook might just earn you that brownie point in your next Bank/Government exam. Banking & REGISTER FOR A Government Banking MBA Government Exam 2017 Free All India Test 2 www.oliveboard.in Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants Volume 1(2017) Nuclear Power Plants in India Name Location Narora Atomic Power Station Narora, Uttar Pradesh Madras Atomic Power Station Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu Kaiga Generating Station Kaiga, Karnataka Kakrapar Atomic Power Station Kakrapar, Gujarat Kudankulam Atomic Power Project Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Atomic Power Station Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Tarapur Atomic Power Station Tarapur, Maharashtra 3 www.oliveboard.in Nuclear and Thermal Power Plants Volume 1(2017) Thermal Power Plants in India Coal Based Power Stations Andhra Pradesh Name Location Dr Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Station Ibrahimpatnam Hinduja Thermal Power Station Visakhapatnam Meenakshi Thermal Power Station Nellore Painampuram Power Station Painampuram Rayalaseema Thermal Power Station Kadapa Simhadri Super Thermal
    [Show full text]
  • St. Johns River Blueway by Dean Campbell River Overview
    St. Johns River Paddling Trail Directory Note: Be sure to open the “See this trail” link for interactive maps of the blueway Feature and Amenity Key PC Primitive POI Point of W Water Campsite Interest - Landmark DUA Designated Use LA Laundromat PO Post Office Area C Campground I Internet/Wi-fi G Medium/lg supermarket L Lodging S Shower g Convenience/camp stores R Restaurant SS Storm O Outfitter Shelter B Bathroom PI Put-in K Key navigation feature Map River River Location Type of GPS Coord Directions Notes & Contacts # Basin Mile Description Feature (Degree (RM) or decimal Amenity minutes) 1 Upper 294 Blue Cypress Lake B, PI, W, 27° Center of Middletonsfishcamp. 7.5 mi Park g, C 43.589'N Lake, west com 772-778-0150 80° shoreline 46.575'W Upper 291.25 Entrance to ZigZag K 27° North end Canal 45.222'N of Blue 80° Cypress 44.622'W Lake Upper 291 St. Johns Water K 27° East side Management Area 47.439'N of canal - The Stick Marsh 80° C40 across 43.457'W dike Upper 286.5 S96 C Water K 27° Portage Control Structure 49.279'N north and (portage) 80° follow 44.571'W canal C40 NW to continue down river or portage east into the Stick Marsh towards the St. Johns Marsh PBR Upper 286.5 St. Johns Marsh – B, PI, W 27° East side Barney Green 49.393'N of canal PBR* 80° C40 across 42.537'W dike 2 Upper 286.5 St. Johns Marsh – B, PI, W 27° East side 22 mi Barney Green 49.393'N of canal *2 PBR* 80° C40 across day 42.537'W dike trip Upper 279.5 Great Egret PC 27° East shore Campsite 54.627'N of canal 80° C40 46.177'W Upper 277 Canal Plug in C40 K 27° In canal
    [Show full text]