Methodology of life cycle cost with risk expenditure for offshore process at conceptual design stage
- 1. Industrial Research Institute, Hyundai Heavy Industries, 1 Jeonha-dong, Dong-gu, Ulsan 682-792 (Korea, Republic of)
- 2. Division of Ocean Systems Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 335 Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701 (Korea, Republic of)
- 3. Department of Chemical Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology, San 31, Hyoja-dong, Nam-gu, Pohang, Gyungbuk 790-784 (Korea, Republic of)
Description
This study proposed a new LCC (life cycle cost) methodology with the risk expenditure taken into account for comparative evaluation of offshore process options at their conceptual design stage. The risk expenditure consisted of the failure risk expenditure and the accident risk expenditure. The former accounted for the production loss and the maintenance expense due to equipment failures while the latter reflected the asset damage and the fatality worth caused by disastrous accidents such as fire and explosion. It was demonstrated that the new LCC methodology was capable of playing the role of a process selection basis in choosing the best of the liquefaction process options including the power generation systems for a floating LNG (Liquefied natural gas) production facility. Without the risk expenditure, a simple economic comparison apparently favored the mixed refrigerant cycle which had the better efficiency. The new methodology with the risk expenditure, however, indicated that the nitrogen expansion cycle driven by steam turbines should be the optimum choice, mainly due to its better availability and safety. -- Highlights: → The study presented the methodology of the LCC with the risk expenditure for the conceptual design of offshore processes. → The proposed methodology demonstrated the applicability of the liquefaction unit with the power generation system of LNG FPSO. → Without the risk expenditure, a simple economic comparison apparently favored the mixed refrigerant cycle which had the better efficiency. → The new methodology indicated that the nitrogen expansion cycle driven by steam turbines is the optimum choice due to its better availability and safety.
Availability note (English)
Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.005Additional details
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.energy.2011.01.005;
- PII
- S0360-5442(11)00006-5;
Publishing Information
- Journal Title
- Energy (Oxford)
- Journal Volume
- 36
- Journal Issue
- 3
- Journal Page Range
- p. 1554-1563
- ISSN
- 0360-5442
- CODEN
- ENEYDS
INIS
- Country of Publication
- United Kingdom
- Country of Input or Organization
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- INIS RN
- 45018163
- Subject category
- S29: ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY;
- Descriptors DEI
- COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; DESIGN; ENERGY EFFICIENCY; EXPENDITURES; HAZARDS; LIFE-CYCLE COST; LIQUEFACTION; LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS; NITROGEN; POWER GENERATION; REFRIGERANTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STEAM TURBINES
- Descriptors DEC
- COST; EFFICIENCY; ELEMENTS; ENERGY SOURCES; EQUIPMENT; EVALUATION; FLUIDS; FOSSIL FUELS; FUEL GAS; FUELS; GAS FUELS; GASES; LIQUEFIED GASES; LIQUIDS; MACHINERY; NATURAL GAS; NONMETALS; THERMOCHEMICAL PROCESSES; TURBINES; TURBOMACHINERY; WORKING FLUIDS
Optional Information
- Copyright
- Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.