DOCSLIB.ORG

Technology Supply Curves for Low-Carbon Power Generation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technology Supply Curves for Low-Carbon Power Generation TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CURVES FOR LOW- CARBON POWER GENERATION A report to the Committee on Climate Change ION June 2013 CARBON POWER GENERAT - RVES FOR LOW TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CU TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CURVES FOR LOW-CARBON POWER GENERATION Contact details Name Email Telephone Gareth Davies [email protected] +44 1865 812204 Ali Lloyd [email protected] +44 1865 812227 Pöyry is an international consulting and engineering company. We serve clients globally across the energy and industrial sectors and locally in our core markets. We deliver strategic advisory and engineering services, underpinned by strong project implementation capability and expertise. Our focus sectors are power generation, transmission & distribution, forest industry, chemicals & biorefining, mining & metals, transportation, water and real estate sectors. Pöyry has an extensive local office network employing about 7,000 experts. Pöyry's net sales in 2012 were EUR 775 million and the company's shares are quoted on NASDAQ OMX Helsinki (Pöyry PLC: POY1V). Pöyry Management Consulting provides leading-edge consulting and advisory services covering the whole value chain in energy, forest and other process industries. Our energy practice is the leading provider of strategic, commercial, regulatory and policy advice to Europe's energy markets. Our energy team of 200 specialists, located across 14 European offices in 12 countries, offers unparalleled expertise in the rapidly changing energy sector. Copyright © 2013 Pöyry Management Consulting (UK) Ltd All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of Pöyry Management Consulting (UK) Ltd (“Pöyry”). This report is provided to the legal entity identified on the front cover for its internal use only. This report may not be provided, in whole or in part, to any other party without the prior written permission of an authorised representative of Pöyry. In such circumstances additional fees may be applicable and the other party may be required to enter into either aҟ Release and Non-Reliance Agreement or aҟ Reliance Agreement with Pöyry. Important This document contains confidential and commercially sensitive information. Should any requests for disclosure of information contained in this document be received (whether pursuant to; the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Freedom of Information Act 2003 (Ireland), the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Northern Ireland), or otherwise), we request that we be notified in writing of the details of such request and that we be consulted and our comments taken into account before any action is taken. Disclaimer While Pöyry considers that the information and opinions given in this work are sound, all parties must rely upon their own skill and judgement when making use of it. Pöyry does not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this report and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information. Pöyry will not assume any liability to anyone for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of this report. The report contains projections that are based on assumptions that are subject to uncertainties and contingencies. Because of the subjective judgements and inherent uncertainties of projections, and because events frequently do not occur as expected, there can be no assurance that the projections contained herein will be realised and actual results may be different from projected results. Hence the projections supplied are not to be regarded as firm predictions of the future, but rather as illustrations of what might happen. Parties are advised to base their actions on an awareness of the range of such projections, and to note that the range necessarily broadens in the latter years of the projections. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING June 2013 325_Technology supply curves v5_1.docx TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CURVES FOR LOW-CARBON POWER GENERATION TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Introduction 1 Considering feasible deployment timelines 2 Technology cost distributions 4 Implications for strike prices 7 Looking beyond 2030 11 1. INTRODUCTION 13 1.1 Background 13 1.2 Objectives 14 1.3 Overview of methodology 14 1.4 Limitations to the study 17 1.5 Structure of this report 18 1.6 Conventions and glossary 18 1.7 Acknowledgements 19 2. CONSIDERING FEASIBLE DEPLOYMENT TIMELINES 21 2.1 Methodology 21 2.2 Offshore wind 21 2.3 Onshore wind 29 2.4 Nuclear 35 2.5 CCS 42 2.6 Biomass conversion 46 2.7 Key messages 49 3. TECHNOLOGY COST DISTRIBUTIONS 53 3.1 Methodology 53 3.2 Offshore wind 56 3.3 Onshore wind 61 3.4 Nuclear 66 3.5 CCS 71 3.6 Biomass conversion 76 3.7 Key messages 79 4. IMPLICATIONS FOR STRIKE PRICES 81 4.1 Methodology 81 4.2 Offshore wind 83 4.3 Onshore wind 87 4.4 Nuclear 89 4.5 CCS 93 PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING June 2013 325_Technology supply curves v5_1.docx TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CURVES FOR LOW-CARBON POWER GENERATION 4.6 Biomass conversions 95 4.7 Summary 97 4.8 Assessment of CfD support and resource costs 98 4.9 Key messages 102 5. LOOKING BEYOND 2030 103 5.1 Individual technology considerations 103 5.2 Impact on system decarbonisation 107 ANNEX A – SUMMARY OF COST INPUT ASSUMPTIONS 109 A.1 Offshore wind 109 A.2 Onshore wind 111 A.3 Nuclear 114 A.4 CCS 120 ANNEX B – SENSITIVITY RANGE ASSUMPTIONS 125 Offshore wind 125 Onshore wind 125 Nuclear 125 CCS 126 Biomass conversion 126 ANNEX C – BIBLIOGRAPHY 127 ANNEX D – LIST OF ACRONYMS 131 PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING June 2013 325_Technology supply curves v5_1.docx TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CURVES FOR LOW-CARBON POWER GENERATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Background The Committee on Climate Change (the “Committee”) provides advice to government on climate change issues, and particularly the setting of carbon budgets for the UK. In relation to the electricity sector, this advice is based on developing feasible scenarios of future decarbonisation, derived from an understanding of technology costs and the potential for, and speed of, future deployment. The Committee wishes to review its scenarios for power sector decarbonisation in the light of recent industry developments, and, in particular, the Government’s Electricity Market Reform proposals. Objectives The aim of this study is to update the Committee’s view of the potential deployment of five key low-carbon electricity technologies expected to make significant contributions to decarbonising the electricity sector by 2030, to update its view of the costs of these technologies, and to understand what levels of support might be required to achieve this deployment. The technologies considered are: onshore wind; offshore wind; nuclear; CCS (based on gas or coal); and biomass conversion – i.e. conversion of existing coal fired generating units to run on biomass. Approach First, we investigate how deployment could proceed taking account of the different stages of project development (such as consenting, construction, and operation) and examining capability at each stage. The aim is to understand the existing project pipeline, what deployment might be achieved by 2030, what are the key factors limiting deployment, and what policy ‘enablers’ might be available or required to mitigate these limitations. In general these feasible deployment ‘timelines’ are ‘high effort’ deployment scenarios – meaning that we assume a continued commitment from the Government to achieve its carbon goals and hence a willingness to implement policies to support the significant growth of low-carbon generation required. Second, we compare recent reported evidence on technology costs with the Committee’s previous assumptions and update where necessary. We then use these cost assumptions to derive a detailed cost distribution for each technology showing the range of costs across the full range of potential projects. For onshore and offshore wind we adopt a more ‘bottom-up’ costing approach owing to the need to derive cost across a large number of projects. Costs are expressed as the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) (in £/MWh), taking account of capital and operating costs and assuming the generator will require a specified rate of return on its investment. In assessing costs we take account of the potential for costs to change over time as a result of technology learning and PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING June 2013 325_Technology supply curves v5_1.docx 1 TECHNOLOGY SUPPLY CURVES FOR LOW-CARBON POWER GENERATION reductions in the required rate of return as a technology matures and is perceived as less risky. We then use the cost distributions to assess the level of support (expressed as Contract for Difference (CfD) strike prices) likely to be required for each technology consistent with achieving deployment in line with the projected deployment timeline. Knowledge of the strike prices required to achieve the deployment timeline for each technology then allows us to evaluate the total support costs required, as well as the ‘resource cost’ (i.e. the net cost) associated with this support. Study limitations It is important to understand the limitations of a study of this nature, especially given the ambitious objective of examining the future evolutions of costs and deployment for five different low-carbon technologies out to 2030. Levelised cost estimates are inherently uncertain, and are driven by underlying assumptions on capital and operating costs, fuel prices, load factor, discounts rates, and how costs might change over time as a technology matures – all of which are themselves uncertain. As a result of these limitations and uncertainties, the results presented here should not be regarded as firm predictions of the future. They should be viewed as illustration of what might happen to deployment given certain conditions, or of what strike prices might be required based on the costs we derive. To put this uncertainty into context we have performed sensitivity analysis to understand the impact of uncertainty in key cost drivers on required strike prices.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Commissioning Engineer with Experience in Regulated Industries
    Commissioning Engineer with experience in regulated industries Are you looking for a career with a sense of purpose? Our purpose is to help all our clients achieve theirs! Join a company that provides decisive and measurable solutions for complex challenges in the Life Science Industry. We can turn what can be challenging situations into actionable and realistic solutions. Among our many exciting projects, we have helped clients “Feed the World,” “Detect Cancer Early, When it Can be Cured,” “Create the First Bioengineered Human Acellular Vessel (HAV),” and “Lower the Cost of Life-Saving Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Products to Improve the Life of All Patients”. PEG is a full-service program, project, cost, and construction management firm that delivers customized innovative solutions focused on the Life Science industry. We work on a variety of project sizes and types and our expert, in-house team provides program and project management, construction management, cost estimating and management, scheduling, and commissioning services. We are a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), North Carolina state HubZone certified, and a State of Virginia Small, Women-owned, and Minority-owned Business (SWaM) firm that offers a host of project support services to clients nationwide. This is a full-time, permanent position in a fast-paced environment. The role could alternate between our HQ office located in the Research Triangle Park, NC, and Client's locations. Job Overview: Commissioning engineers perform commissioning testing on facilities and manufacturing equipment; author commissioning plans, risk assessments, commissioning protocol, and standard operating procedures; and, provide client support for projects either independently or as part of a larger team.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Commissioning Guideline
    BUILDING COMMISSIONING GUIDELINE BY APEGM PRACTICE STANDARDS COMMITTEE June, 2002 Prepared By: M. J. Frye, P. Eng. , Chair R. Dewar, P. Eng. I. D. Kelly, P. Eng. R. I. McDowall, P. Eng. D. I. Waldman, P. Eng. 1617171166 Table of Contents 1 Overview ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Objectives of the Guideline........................................................... 1 1.2 Definition of Commissioning........................................................ 1 1.3 Benefits of a Comprehensive Commissioning Program................. 1 1.4 Scope of the Guideline.................................................................. 3 2 Fundamentals of a Comprehensive Commissioning Program ................... 5 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................. 5 2.2 Planning ...................................................................................... 5 2.3 Preparation.................................................................................... 7 2.4 Implementation............................................................................. 9 2.4.1 Facility Start-Up Activities........................................................... 9 2.4.2 Post Construction Phase ............................................................. 12 2.5 Project Evaluation....................................................................... 13 3 Organizational Considerations ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Building Commissioning Guide
    GSA Public Buildings Service the building commissioning guide the building commissioning guide U.S. General Services Administration Public Buildings Service Office of the Chief Architect April 2005 table of contents foreword iii introduction v building commissioning philosophy vii building commissioning process 1 overview 3 planning stage 5 design stage 21 construction stage 35 post-construction stage 47 appendices 55 a sample scope for commissioning services 57 b commissioning systems selection matrix 72 c resources and references 77 d glossary 79 acknowledgements 83 ii foreword The U.S. General Services Administration, through its Public Buildings Service (PBS), manages buildings that house over a million Federal associates and has an on-going planning, design and construction program to meet our federal customers housing needs. PBS’ project delivery program is the vehicle for transforming our customer agencies’ vision into reality. The built environment for our nation’s public buildings, including courthouses, federal office buildings, laboratories, and border stations, in turn shapes the communities and landscape in which they reside. The comfort, productivity and job satisfaction of a million Federal associates in many ways rests with the quality of their immediate working environment. Critical to our management role is providing our customer agencies with the assurance that we are delivering to them facilities which meet or exceed their expectations for performance, efficiency, safety, sustainability, security and occupant satisfaction. Integrating the process of Total Building Commissioning into project delivery is one way we can provide the occupants of our facilities with this level of assurance. Total Building Commissioning, as presented in this Guide, is GSA’s quality delivery process which translates expectations into documented and tangible facility results.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article Integrative Approach to the Plant Commissioning Process
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Industrial Engineering Volume 2013, Article ID 572072, 12 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/572072 Research Article Integrative Approach to the Plant Commissioning Process Kris Lawry,1 and Dirk John Pons2 1 Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand Correspondence should be addressed to Dirk John Pons; [email protected] Received 20 September 2012; Revised 2 December 2012; Accepted 19 December 2012 Academic Editor: Xueqing Zhang Copyright © 2013 K. Lawry and D. J. Pons. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Commissioning is essential in plant-modi�cation projects, yet tends to be ad hoc. e issue is not so much ignorance as lack of systematic approaches. is paper presents a structured model wherein commissioning is systematically integrated with risk management, project management, and production engineering. ree strategies for commissioning emerge, identi�ed as direct, advanced, and parallel. Direct commissioning is the traditional approach of stopping the plant to insert the new unit. Advanced commissioning is the commissioning of the new unit prior to installation. Parallel commissioning is the commissioning of the new unit in its operating position, while the old unit is still operational. Results are reported for two plant case studies, showing that advanced and parallel commissioning can signi�cantly reduce risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Building Program Manual
    Green Building Program Manual CC2014-01 (May 9, 2014) |COVER Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 Background and Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 1 Overview of Manual ........................................................................................................................................ 1 DESIGN PHASE ................................................................................................................................. 3 Applicability of DC Green Building Requirements ........................................................................................... 3 2013 DC Building Code ............................................................................................................................. 3 2013 DC Energy Conservation Code ......................................................................................................... 4 Green Building Act ................................................................................................................................... 5 2013 DC Green Construction Code .......................................................................................................... 7 Transitory Provisions ................................................................................................................................ 8 Requests
    [Show full text]
  • Automation Contractor and Electrical Consulting Services PROJECT DESIGN and IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE MAC/ECS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE 1
    PROCESS AUTOMATION Main Automation Contractor and Electrical Consulting Services PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE MAC/ECS PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE 1. Executive summary TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE The main automation contractor (MAC) and electrical contractor services (ECS) approach is the most effective way to reduce cost overruns and eliminate schedule delays in heavy 1. Executive summary 1 industry sectors. This approach has been demonstrated to lower the overall risks for both 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CAPABILITIES 1 the owner/operator and the engineering procurement and construction (EPC) contractor, 1.2 RESPONSIBILITIES 1 providing benefits in both capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX) 2. Main Automation Contractor (MAC) 2 savings and schedule reduction. 2.1 MAC MANAGEMENT SERVICES 2 The savings from the reduction in schedule leads to early 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CAPABILITIES 2.2 MAC INSTRUMENT SERVICES 2 production and can yield benefits that often exceed the overall Sensia as a MAC can provide the following services: 2.3 MAC COMMISSIONING SERVICES 2 cost of the MAC/ECS contractor. 1. Project management The Sensia approach to providing total lifecycle solutions for 2.4 MAC AUTOMATION 3 2. Interface management integrated control, power, and safety (ICPS) applications is 3. Electrical Consulting Services (ECS) 5 to work with the plant designers to fully understand the plant 3. Control, shutdown, and fire and gas (F&G) systems 3.1 ECS MANAGEMENT SERVICES 5 operation our systems control and help protect, hence enabling 4. Design (instrument and electrical) 3.2 ECS ELECTRICAL SERVICES 5 Sensia to take full responsibility for the performance of those 5.
    [Show full text]
  • A Practical Guide to Construction, Commissioning and Qualification Documentation – and Its Critical Role in Achieving Complian
    Commissioning and Qualification This article Reprinted from The Official Journal of ISPE focuses on PHARMACEUTICAL ENGINEERING® July/August 2005, Vol. 25 No. 4 construction contractors who can deliver A Practical Guide to Construction, qualified facilities and Commissioning and Qualification presents the advantages of Documentation – and its Critical Role using a construction in Achieving Compliance contractor who can perform by Wael Allan and Andrew D. Skibo Commissioning and Qualification. ood documentation is essential for Naturally, the initial focus must be on the pharmaceutical and biotech manufac- proper construction and start-up of the facility. turing facilities to achieve regulatory Yet, a well-constructed facility that is on time, compliance. As defined by the Food within budget, and whose every system is per- Gand Drug Administration (FDA), “Validation is forming to specifications is of no value to the a documented program providing a high degree operating company if the associated documen- of assurance that a process/system consistently tation does not effectively support the qualifi- meets pre-determined specifications.” The clear cation process – it is a classic case of failing to presumption is that if the required activities see the forest through trees. In fact, the con- have not been properly documented, then they struction contractor must appreciate the sig- have not been performed. nificance of documentation, and make it an integral part of the con- Figure 1. Validation life cycle. struction planning, im- plementation, and com- missioning process from day one. Note: the term “Con- struction Contractor” is used to indicate a third party company respon- sible for construction, commissioning and qual- ification.
    [Show full text]
  • Achieving Success in the Commissioning and Startup of Capital Projects: Implementing Critical Success Factors
    Achieving Success in the Commissioning and Startup of Capital Projects: Implementing Critical Success Factors Implementation Resource 312-2 Volume I CII Member Companies Abbott AECOM Ameren Corporation AMEC Foster Wheeler American Transmission Company AZCO Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Aecon Group Anglo American Affiliated Construction Services Anheuser-Busch InBev Alstom Power Aramco Services Company Atlas RFID Solutions ArcelorMittal Autodesk Architect of the Capitol Baker Concrete Construction AstraZeneca Barton Malow Company BG Group Bechtel Group BP America Bentley Systems Cargill Bilfinger Industrial Services Chevron Black & Veatch ConocoPhillips Burns & McDonnell Consolidated Edison Company of New York CB&I DTE Energy CCC Group The Dow Chemical Company CDI Engineering Solutions DuPont CH2M Eastman Chemical Company CSA Central Ecopetrol Construtora Norberto Odebrecht Enbridge Coreworx EnLink Midstream Day & Zimmermann Eskom Holdings SOC Emerson Process Management ExxonMobil Corporation Enstoa General Electric Company Faithful+Gould General Motors Company Fluor Corporation GlaxoSmithKline Hargrove Engineers + Constructors Global Infrastructure Partners Hilti Corporation Honeywell International IHI E&C International Corporation Huntsman Corporation IHS Intel Corporation International Rivers Consulting Irving Oil Limited JMJ Associates Kaiser Permanente JV Driver Projects Koch Industries Jacobs Eli Lilly and Company KBR LyondellBasell Kiewit Corporation Marathon Petroleum Corporation Lauren Engineers & Constructors National Aeronautics
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article Integrative Approach to the Plant Commissioning Process
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Industrial Engineering Volume 2013, Article ID 572072, 12 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/572072 Research Article Integrative Approach to the Plant Commissioning Process Kris Lawry,1 and Dirk John Pons2 1 Department of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand 2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand Correspondence should be addressed to Dirk John Pons; [email protected] Received 20 September 2012; Revised 2 December 2012; Accepted 19 December 2012 Academic Editor: Xueqing Zhang Copyright © 2013 K. Lawry and D. J. Pons. is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Commissioning is essential in plant-modi�cation projects, yet tends to be ad hoc. e issue is not so much ignorance as lack of systematic approaches. is paper presents a structured model wherein commissioning is systematically integrated with risk management, project management, and production engineering. ree strategies for commissioning emerge, identi�ed as direct, advanced, and parallel. Direct commissioning is the traditional approach of stopping the plant to insert the new unit. Advanced commissioning is the commissioning of the new unit prior to installation. Parallel commissioning is the commissioning of the new unit in its operating position, while the old unit is still operational. Results are reported for two plant case studies, showing that advanced and parallel commissioning can signi�cantly reduce risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Storage Commissioning Engineer Location: Alpharetta, Georgia (Eligible to Work Remotely)
    4601 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22203 +1 703 682 6629 fluenceenergy.com Energy Storage Commissioning Engineer Location: Alpharetta, Georgia (Eligible to work remotely) About Fluence Fluence, a Siemens and AES company, is the leading global energy storage technology solutions and services company that combines the agility of a fast-growing technology company with the expertise, vision, and financial backing of two industry powerhouses. Building on the pioneering work of AES Energy Storage and Siemens energy storage, Fluence’s goal is to create a more sustainable future by transforming the way we power our world. The company offers proven energy storage technology solutions designed to address the diverse needs and challenges of customers in a rapidly transforming energy landscape, providing design, delivery and integration in over 160 countries. Fluence works closely with customers throughout their journey and provides advisory, financing, and project lifecycle services. Responsibilities Fluence seeks an Energy Storage Commissioning Engineer to drive energy storage project commissioning and to support project delivery. The Energy Storage Commissioning Engineer will: • Commission Fluence Projects working in cooperation with multiple project stakeholders including Fluence construction managers, contractors, suppliers, automation teams, control systems teams, etc. • Develop and execute commissioning plans including resourcing and scheduling. • Lead commissioning effort to achieve commercial operations, and handover from delivery/construction team to the O&M team for each project. • Define, develop and execute testing protocols based on market rules, local utility requirements, off-taker and third-party supply contracts. • Oversee complete commissioning and acceptance testing of the following systems: 1) project networks, communications, and control systems; 2) balance of plant relay protection, metering, HVAC, fire suppression, and electrical systems; 3) battery subsystem; 4) inverter subsystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Commissioning Management Mark Bridges; Msc, B‐Eng (Hons)
    28/02/2012 Commissioning Management Mark Bridges; MSc, B‐Eng (hons) 22 February 2012 A bit about me •Electrical Apprentice/Engineering Technician ‐ APCM •Attained an HNC Electrical Engineering 1988 ‐ 1993 •Project/Commissioning Engineer –SatchwellControl Systems 1993 ‐ 1995 •Project Engineer/Manager – lGlaxoSmithkline •Attained First Class Honours Degree Mechanical Engineering; Masters Degree in Sustainable Energy Systems 1995 – 2005 •Building Services Manager –Laing O’Rourke 2005 – 2008 •Associate Director – Topic Plan 2008 – 2010 •Commissioning Manager – Brookfield Multiplex 2010 ‐ 1 28/02/2012 What is Commissioning Management? •The execution of commissioning management procedures that control and monitor the project from commencement to practical completion and beyond •The procedures should provide traceability of the commissioning activities •This should result in documentary evidence illustrating the completeness of a project to the original design intent Commissioning Management Road Map 2 28/02/2012 Commissioning Management Road Map • Consider commissioning in the client brief •Ensure budget assigned for commissioning Commissioning Management Road Map • Appoint a commissioning management specialist •Perform commissioning focused design reviews 3 28/02/2012 Commissioning Management Road Map • Compile a commissioning plan • Make clear the expectation during tender Commissioning Management Road Map • Produce a commissioning programme • Review ‘for Construction’ drawings 4 28/02/2012 Commissioning Management Road Map • Validate setting
    [Show full text]
  • Commissioning for Federal Facilities
    Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction uilding commissioning Building commissioning has has often been likened to its roots in the Quality Control commissioning of a ship, programs of the 1970s and is B where the Owners thor- a direct product of the Total oughly verify and prove the func- Quality Management pro- 1 tional performance of all parts – grams of the 1980s. Commis- engines, compasses, sonar, radar, sioning is a direct response to radio, generators, potable water building Owners who com- systems, and so on – under all pos- plain that their facilities do not sible conditions and as a condition meet performance expecta- of acceptance before placing the tions, are extraordinarily ex- ship in service. And where the pensive to operate and Owner checks the presence of sys- maintain, lack valuable docu- tem operating and procedures mentation, and are staffed by manuals and the availability of up- personnel who are unfamiliar to-date navigation charts. And with and have never been where the crew has been properly trained on the building’s highly and thoroughly trained on the ship’s complex operations and control sys- “Building commissioning has systems’ operations and emergency tems. often been likened to the procedures. Commissioning is not commissioning of a ship.” new – ships and aircraft have been Until now, many of us thought of commissioned for years. building construction completion and turnover as physically completing an installation, throwing the switch, making a few adjustments, Goals of Commissioning: spending minimal time with the operators by ◆ Provide a safe and healthy facility. pointing to the equip- ◆ Improve energy performance and minimize ment with one hand energy consumption.
    [Show full text]