Relación entre Altruismo y sensatez.

In view of various uncertainties about future evolution of gas supply in Mexico, it was considered convenient and necessary to explore alternative plans for the expansion of the electricity generation system considering gas supply limitations. With this purpose, in addition to the base case, the following two alternative expansion plans have been carried out:

• Alternative D1: Case of limitation on the number of combined cycle units

• Alternative D2: Case of limited gas supply

Table 4.26 Cumulative investment and operation costs

Alternative Investment Operation Total

million US$ (1998) million US$ (1998) million US$ (1998)

Base Case 9 548 44 871 54 419

Alternative C1 9 698 49 115 58 813

Alternative C2 8 894 54 258 63 152

Alternative C3 27 692 51 922 79 614

In Alternative D1, starting year 2009, the annual inputs of new combined-cycle of 545 MW

are limited to 3 units per year instead of 4 to 7 units in the Base Case. The Base Case assumes the construction of about 65,500 MW based on natural gas by the year 2024 whereas the Alternative D1 assumes that 19,950 MW based on coal will be constructed (57 Dual units) and

47,126 MW based on gas (85 combined cycle units and 4 gas turbine units). The building up programs for hydro capacity, nuclear power capacity and geothermal capacity in this alternative are essentially identical to those in the Base Case.

Alternative C3 Hydro Nuclear Fuel oil Geothe rmal Coal Natural gas 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 MW

Figure 4.18 Projected installed capacity (Alternative C3).

The future electricity generation for Alternative D1 is shown in Figure 4.19. It may be noted

that in this case the share of electricity generation based on coal is 25% in the terminal year compared to zero percent in the Base Case, whereas the share of gas fired capacity has decreased from 73% in the Base Case to 53% in this alternative. It is important to mention that alternative D1 requires maintaining the same level of reserve and reliability as in the Base

Case. This is due to the efficiency of dual power plants, which is lower than in combined cycle plants.

In Alternative D2, it has been assumed that due to natural gas imports are not firmly

established by this year. The gas supply is only for gas-fired plants installed up to 2010, and then there are limitations on the installation of new gas fired plants. In these conditions the gas-fired additions in the Base Case have been replaced by coal fired plants. The results show that will be constructed and the capacity additions based on natural gas remain in 24,570 MW from 2010 up to 2024.

The projected installed capacity for alternative D2 for the future years is given in Figure 3.20.

It may be noted that the hydroelectric capacity grows 770 MW by 2021 due to the installation of three hydroelectric projects (Atexcaco 120 MW, San Juan Tetelcingo 610 MW and Nuevo Tuxpango of 40 MW). Nuclear and geothermal capacities remain the same as in the Base Case. The share of electricity generation based on natural gas has significantly decreased in this case up to 29% instead of 93% as in the Base Case, the share of electricity generation based on coal plants grew from zero percent in the Base Case to 40% while the share of hydroelectric capacity has increased from 13% to 14% in this alternative expansion plan. Table 4.27 shows the investment requirements over the whole planning period for the Base Case and Alternatives D1 and D2. The cumulative investments and cumulative system

Table 43.27 Annual environmental emissions from power generation

1998

Base Case Alternative C1 Alternative C2 Alternative C3

million ton million ton million ton million ton UCO2 81 892.78 81 892.78 84 368.19 81 892.78

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton CSOx 1 537.94 1 537.94 1 708.69 1 537.94 USOx 1 537.94 1 537.94 1 708.69 1 537.94 thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton

CNOx 221.31 221.31 213.89 221.31

UNOx 221.31 221.31 213.89 221.31

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton CParticulate 93.88 93.88 104.19 93.88 UParticulate 93.88 93.88 104.19 93.88

2010

Base Case Alternative C1 Alternative C2 Alternative C3

million ton million ton million ton million ton UCO2 109 266.80 108 375.18 122 804.34 169 898.19

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton

CSOx 533.78 496.38 1 215.79 601.59

USOx 533.78 496.38 1 215.79 601.59

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton

CNOx 242.27 238.23 266.55 654.10

UNOx 242.27 238.23 266.55 654.10

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton CParticulate 27.58 25.32 68.82 43.80 UParticulate 27.58 25.32 68.82 43.80

2024

Base Case Alternative C1 Alternative C2 Alternative C3

million ton million ton million ton million ton UCO2 195 519.76 195 140.30 205 326.89 322 597.00

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton

CSOx 344.00 326.41 845.04 630.00

USOx 344.00 326.41 845.04 630.00

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton

CNOx 338.01 336.48 361.12 1 192.42

UNOx 338.01 336.48 361.12 1 192.42

thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton thousand ton CParticulate 16.27 15.21 46.44 58.26 UParticulate 16.27 15.21 46.44 58.26

operation costs (O&M and fuel costs) in present worth are shown for the three alternative expansion plans. In the Base Case, the cumulative investments for capacity additions have been estimated in US$ 9,548 million and the cumulative system operation costs in US$ 44,871 million. Alternative D1 Hydro Nucle ar Fuel oil Ge othe rmal Coal Natural gas 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 M W

Figure 4.19 Projected installed capacity (Alternative D1).

Compared to the Base Case, the cumulative investments in Alternatives D1 and D2 are US$

2,409 million and US$ 5,939 million higher, respectively; this is due to the fact that capital costs of dual power plants are higher compared to those for combined cycle technology. On the other hand, the system operation costs in Alternative D1 and D2 are lower compared to

those in the Base Case. This difference is due to the low fuel costs of the coal power plants.

The Table 4.28 shows, for the Base Case and Alternatives D1 and D2, the annual

environmental emissions from power generation for the years 1998, 2010 and 2024. It may be noted that the annual emissions of CO2 and NOX in the Base Case will increase by 138% and

53%, respectively, over the study period, while the emissions of SOX and particulate will

decrease by 78% and 83%, respectively, over the same period.

For Alternative D1, the annual emissions of CO2 and NOX will increase by 194% and 192%,

respectively, over the study period, while the emissions of SOX and particulate will decrease

Finally, for Alternative D2, the annual emissions of CO2 and NOX will increase by 258% and

351%, respectively, over the study period, while the emissions of SOX and particulate will

decrease by 62% and 47%, respectively, over the same period.

Alternative D2 Hydro Nuclear Fuel oil Geother mal Coal Natural ga s 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 M W

Figure 4.20 Projected installed capacity (Alternative D2).