Lessons learned from implementation of Mutnovsky IPP Project
- Key words
- Independent power producer, IFI conditions
- Location
- Munovsky, Russia; Kamchatka
- Conference
- International Geothermal Workshop, Russia
- Year
- 2003
- Session
- Financial schemes of international geothermal projects organ
- Language
- English
- Paper number
- W00022
Full text
410KB, opens in a new tab
Abstract
This paper describes the history and implementation of the 2 x 25 MW Mutnovsky geothermal power project located in Kamchatka, Far Eastern Russia. This greenfield project was the first of its kind for both for the EBRD and for Russia. Designed by consultants in Russia and New Zealand, it blends the best of Russian and Western technology. Components were manufactured in Russia, Europe and the US, and the station was built in difficult climatic conditions accessible only during short summer periods. Its successful completion has provided a showcase of lessons for future renewable projects in transition countries.
Being the Kamchatka regionÃs first Independent Power Producer, the projectÃs PPA price determination provisions and tariff setting are discussed in terms of the plant having to displace generation from existing state owned CHPs. An outline is given of loan processing and the conditions established by the EBRD to ensure the project was fully financed and able to repay its debt. The procurement phase of the project is discussed in terms of strategy and procedures adopted with details of difficulties in getting adequate competition and delays encountered.
Lessons learned from the manufacturing and construction phases are discussed with emphasis on project management issues relating to the design, manufacturing, testing and transportation of plant and equipment destined for a remote and severe climate location such as Mutnovsky. The paper also touches on lessons learned from organizational, logistic and technical difficulties encountered during the drilling and plant construction phases. The project implementation schedule and final project costs are compared with targets set and estimates made at the feasibility stage and explanations given regarding the substantial time overrun. The paper concludes that most technical, financial and environmental project objectives set at the feasibility stage have been achieved.
Abstract file
Copyright 2003, Association of Geothermal Energy Soc. Readers who download papers from this site should honour the copyright of the original authors, and may not copy or distribute the work further without the permission of the original publisher.