Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
5
Case study: NBE – lessons learned
Founded in 2004
Built China’s first biomass plant in
2006, have built on average one
every 2 month since then.
Currently have 1200 MWe
capacity, largest biomass power
generating company in the world
Adapted European HPHT
technology: DP CleanTech
Partnership with State Grid.
Case study: NBE – lessons learned
CC CC
Collection 50 KM
Power Plant
CC 8 Collection Centers/PP
CC Quality
CC
120 Agents AG AG control
Fuel
Weight
Fuel
F F F F F storage
400 Farmers/ AG
High Performance Technology
NBE were able to reduce fuel supply risk and allow better operability
Fuel flexibility
– Moisture Content up to 60 %
– Different types of Biomass - Mix
straw type and wood chip
– Vibrating grates can adjust to
fuel type
Availability
– 7,500-8000 hours a year
– Boiler designed to handle
corrosion and fouling
WATER COOLED VIBRATING GRATE
– Good maintenance
High Performance Technology
The feedstock costs for a HTHP are nearly 20% lower than MTMP
Lower feedstock costs would in return lead to lower price fluctuations and
risk
HTHP is able to generate much higher cash flows which can be used to
service a greater amount of debt
15
HTHP vs MTMP
Cost Assumptions
For our analysis we have only altered 2 variable, the cost of the plant and
the plant efficiency which then has a resultant effect on the amount of
feedstock consumed per ton of power generated
30 Mwe Reference Plant
NBE has now constructed and is operating more than thirtyy 30MW plants all of which are being benchmarked against Generic Model,
therefore we believe this is the right reference point for our Analysis
For our analysis we have only altered 2 variable, the cost of the plant and the plant efficiency which then has a resultant effect on the amount of
feedstock consumed per ton of power generated
Efficiency factor Approx. 32.6% efficiency for HTHP and 27.0 for
MTMP O&M cost 0.2 mUSD per year
Efficiencies adjusted for plant degradation as given
below:
Working Inventory – 16.7% of Feedstock costs
1st year 0.25%
Capital
2nd year 0.50%
Assumptions
3rd year 0.75%
4th year 1.00% Debt Funding Assume 70% debt financing on capital expenditure
(Overhaul at the end of 4th year)
Interest rate of 6%
5th year 0.25%
Capital 100% Capital expenditure spent in the year prior to year of
Feedstock heat USD 0.0042 / MJ = 50 USD/ton at NCV = 12000 kJ/kg
Expenditure operations
price
Assumed total capital expenditure
Internal Power 11%
• 30MW HTHP – USD 30 mn
Use
• 30MW MTMP – USD 25 mn
Construction 18 months
period
HTHP vs. MTMP – Side by Side
30 Mwe HTHP MTMP
Feedstock
2012 2013 2014 2015 2012 2013 2014 2015 casts of
Net power revenues mUSD 0 9.4 19.1 19.7 0.00 9.25 18.91 19.47
Feedstock costs mUSD 0 -5.4 -11.1 -11.5 0.00 -6.58 -13.45 -13.86 HTHP are
Other costs mUSD -0.51 -1.7 -1.9 -1.9 -0.51 -1.72 -1.86 -1.90
total COGS mUSD -0.51 -7.2 -13.0 -13.3 -0.51 -8.30 -15.31 -15.75
about 17.5 %
EBITDA mUSD -0.51 2.20 6.14 6.35 -0.51 0.95 3.59 3.72
lower than
margin mUSD 0% 23% 32% 32% 0% 10% 19% 19% that of MTMP
Depreciation mUSD 0 -0.8 -1.5 -1.5 0 -1.01 -2 -2 due to higher
EBIT mUSD -0.51 1.4 4.6 4.8 -0.51 -0.06 1.59 1.72 plant
margin mUSD 0% 15% 24% 25% 0 -0.01 0.08 0.09 efficiency
Net income mUSD -1.08 0.3 2.8 3.0 -1.08 -1.14 0.47 0.65
Cash Flow
Net income mUSD -1.08 0.3 2.8 3.0 -1.08 -1.14 0.47 0.65
add depreciation mUSD 0 0.8 1.5 1.5 0.00 1.01 2.00 2.00
less changes in NWC mUSD 0 -0.9 -0.9 -0.1 0.00 -1.10 -1.15 -0.07 Project IRR
Cash flow from operations
add net interest expenses
mUSD
mUSD
-1.08
0
0.1
1.9
3.3
1.9
4.4
1.9
-1.08
0.00
-1.23
1.89
1.33
1.89
2.59
1.89
20 % vrs 13
Capex mUSD -27 0.0 0.0 0.0 -27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 %.
Free cash flow mUSD -28.1 2.0 5.2 6.3 -28.08 0.66 3.22 4.48
And ROCE is
IRR % 20% 13%
ROCE % 37% 22% 37 % vrs 22
%
Indian 12 Mwe plant
Utilization hours 7,500 hours in each year Depreciation 12 MW plant - 15 years straight-line depreciation
Efficiency factor Approx. 32.6% efficiency for HTHP and 27.0 for
MTMP O&M cost 0.2 mUSD per year adjusted by inflation
Efficiencies adjusted for plant degradation as given Water cost 0.1 mUSD per year adjusted by inflation
below:
Plant SG&A 0.2 mUSD per year adjusted by inflation
1st year 0.25%
2nd year 0.50% Working Inventory – 16.7% of Feedstock costs
3rd year 0.75% Capital
4th year 1.00% Assumptions
(Overhaul at the end of 4th year)
5th year 0.25% Debt Funding Assume 70% debt financing on capital expenditure
Interest rate of 13%
Feedstock heat USD 0.0033/ MJ = 40 USD/ton at NCV = 12000 kJ/kg
price adjusted with 6 % per year (inflation) Capital 100% Capital expenditure spent in the year prior to year of
Expenditure operations
Internal Power 11%
Assumed total capital expenditure
Use
• 12 MW HTHP – USD 12 mn
• 12 MW MTMP – USD 11 mn
Construction 18 months
period
Indian HTHP vs. MTMP
Indian 12 Mwe HTHP MTMP Margins
Net power revenues mUSD
2012 2013
0.00 4.24
2014
8.83
2015
9.27
2012 2013
0.00 4.24
2014
8.83
2015
9.27
are lower
Feedstock costs mUSD 0.00 -2.24 -4.71 -4.99 0.00 -2.71 -5.70 -6.04 due to
Other costs mUSD -0.16 -0.82 -0.90 -0.94 -0.16 -0.82 -0.90 -0.94
total COGS mUSD -0.16 -3.06 -5.61 -5.93 -0.16 -3.53 -6.60 -6.98 higher
EBITDA mUSD -0.16 1.18 3.22 3.34 -0.16 0.71 2.23 2.29 interest
margin mUSD 0% 28% 36% 36% 0% 17% 25% 25%
rate
Depreciation mUSD 0.00 -1.01 -2.00 -2.00 0.00 -1.01 -2.00 -2.00
EBIT mUSD -0.16 0.17 1.22 1.34 -0.16 -0.30 0.23 0.29
margin mUSD 0% 4% 14% 14% 0% -7% 3% 3%
Net income mUSD -0.66 -0.80 0.23 0.38 -0.62 -1.19 -0.60 -0.48
Cash Flow
Net income mUSD -0.66 -0.80 0.23 0.38 -0.62 -1.19 -0.60 -0.48
add depreciation mUSD 0.00 1.01 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.01 2.00 2.00 Project IRR
less changes in NWC mUSD 0.00 -0.37 -0.41 -0.05 0.00 -0.45 -0.50 -0.06
Cash flow from operations mUSD -0.66 -0.17 1.82 2.33 -0.62 -0.63 0.90 1.47
20.8 % vrs
add net debt repayment mUSD
Capex mUSD
0.00
-12.00
0.56
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
-11.00
0.51
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.51
0.00
15 %.
Free cash flow mUSD -12.66 0.39 2.38 2.89 -11.62 -0.12 1.41 1.98 And ROCE
IRR % 20.8% 15.0% is 39.7 % vrs
ROCE % 39.7% 28.0%
28 %
Biomass Cost Structure
Sensitivity
At fuel cost of 20
USD/ton IRR is similar.
HTHP is more stable
with varying fuel cost
15mUSD for
HTHP will have
same IRR as 11
mUSD for MTMP.
Financing Ability
Generally banks are cash flow based lenders and will determine sustainable
debt levels based on there free cash flow available to service debt and the
variability of those cash flows
As explained above, feedstock is by far the greatest variable cost for a plant
Further in a situation where feedstock varies, HTHP cash flows are less sensitive
India Market Overview
• Market similarities
• Current situation in India
• India produces about 450-500 million tones of biomass per year.
• EAI estimates that the potential in the short term for power from biomass
in India varies from about 18,000 MW, when the scope of biomass is as
traditionally defined, to a high of about 50,000 MW if one were to expand
the scope of definition of biomass.
• Govt incentives - capital subsidy, renewable energy certificates and Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) which can be utilized effectively to make
the project economically attractive
Challenges India Market
• Use HPHT to get the best out of your fuel and improve IRR