The Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine the Most Effective Cost of Installation High Voltage Undersea Cable Bali Strait

Journal of Energy and Power Engineering 6 (2012) 2082-2089

The Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine the

Most Effective Cost of Installation High Voltage

Undersea Cable Bali Strait

Ngapuli Sinisuka1, Iqbal Felani1, 2 and Novrizal Erdiansyah1, 2

1. Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung 40132, Indonesia

2. National Electricity Company (PT. PLN (Persero)), Jakarta 12160, Indonesia

Received: November 28, 2011 / Accepted: March 27, 2012 / Published: December 31, 2012.

Abstract: Indonesian National Electricity Company (PT.PLN (Persero)) has planned to install additional high voltage undersea cable for circuit III and IV Java-Bali to fulfill electricity demand in Bali. This project was more prefered compared to building another power plant in Bali which could raise social and cultural resistance. Life cycle cost method was used to complete the financial feasibility study to ensure if the project has economic benefit, and the asset would be used effectively and efficiently along its benefit period. In this paper, a life cycle cost will be simulated to analyze which alternative is the most profitable: installation circuit III and IV in 2012 or installation circuit III in 2012 and circuit IV in 2017 in accordance with load forecasting demand. This study is used to help the management to make a decision about the project. Key words: Financial feasibility, life cycle cost, high voltage undersea cable installation.

1. Introduction

The island of Bali, Indonesia, is one of the favorite

tourism in the world. Bali has cultural diversity and

beautiful beaches that support the tourism, as the main

business of Bali. This island is located in the east of

Java, the main island in Indonesia.

Currently, Bali’s electricity system (Figs. 1 and 2) is

called by net importer [1, 2]. It means Bali has lower

power plant capacity compared to its load. In 2010,

Bali had 548.5 MW peak load. The composition of

electricity supply in Bali is showed in Table 1.

To anticipate the increasing electricity demand, PLN

conducts planning study every 10 years. Based on short

term load forecast (2011-2020) with linear regression

analysis, the existing electrical system of Bali will not

meet the demand in 2012 (demand is assumed with

Corresponding author: Iqbal Felani, master, research field:

ordinal matrix method modelling to analyze high voltage transmission installation risks. E-mail: [email protected].

peak load). New investment is required to keep Bali’s

system for the next 10 years. Load forecast with linear

regression analysis in Bali’s system is shown in Fig. 3.

2. Generating the Alternatives

There are two alternatives to meet the demand in

Bali’s system:

Independent System of Bali. It can meet the

increasing demand by building a new power plant in

Bali island.

Import the power from Java’s system. Currently,

there are two existing circuits of high voltage undersea

cable from Java to Bali, which arecircuit I & II. To meet

the demand in the future, it is better to increase the

power capacity from Java by installing an additional

high voltage undersea cable 150 kV circuit III & IV.

These installations will be done to keep N-1 standard

security high voltage undersea cable Java-Bali;

Another alternative to import the power from Java’s

D DAVID PUBLISHING

The Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine The Most Effective Cost of Installation High Voltage Undersea Cable Bali Strait

2083

Fig. 1 Java Bali Interconnection.

Fig. 2 Single line diagram configuration [1].

Table 1 Existing electricity supply [2, 3].

No. Power supply Capacity (MW)

BPP (IDR/kWh)

1 PLTG + PLTD Pesanggaran 150 1836.13

2 PLTG Pemaron 96 1941.52

3 PLTG Gilimanuk 130 1790.62

4 Undersea cable (circuit 1 & 2) 220 783.00

Total 596

Fig. 3 Load forecasting 2011-2020.

system can be made by Installing the Java-Bali

crossing extra high voltage 500 kV. Balinese is a society with a very strong culture who

deeply respect in their tradition and cultural heritage.

They oppose the building of a new power plant because

of its pollution, noise and also height of the building.

On the other hand, the supply of energy in Bali island

produced by gas and oil. Therefore, the energy cost per

kilo watt hour especially in Bali system became higher

than Java system and is not economically [1]. Because

of this unique social situation in Bali and the high cost

of production, the first alternative, which is

Independent System of Bali is not prioritized.

While installing Java-Bali crossing extra high

voltage 500 kV needs an extra investment and has a

high risk. The most possible alternative to be

implemented is to install an additional high voltage

undersea cable 150 kV circuit III & IV. The advantage

of this installation is especially for not going against

the Balinese society. Moreover, this installation will

also reduce the expensive power plant operating cost,

so the system can be more efficient.

To implement the alternative, more investment is

needed. So feasibility study to determine advantages

and disadvantages of the project is necessary. With this

study the management could determine the most

effective, efficient, and profitable project to choose.

Some alternatives that could affect the profitability of

undersea cable 150 kV circuit III & IV installation are:

Alternative-1, do nothing. This alternative continues

undersea cable circuit I and II operations with existing

220 MW capacity. This alternative do not need the

investment/acquisition cost, so it would save the

budget. However, it would also reduce the potential

revenue because it would not be able to meet the

demand in the future (ENS (energy not served));

Alternative-2, installs undersea cable 150 kV circuit

III & IV step by step in accordance with increasing

demand projection. In Fig. 2, installation of circuit III

could meet Bali’s demand until 2017. So the second

circuit (circuit IV) would only be required to be

installed in 2017 to meet the Bali’s demand until 2020;

Alternative-3, installs undersea cable 150 kV

circuit III & IV simultaneously in 2012. This

alternative will meet the demand of Bali’s system

until 2020. The operation and maintenance cost would

150 MW

Bali System,Peak Load : 500

MW

Circuit I + II220 MW

96 MWFrom Java System

130 MW

GI.PMRON

2x30 MVA

GI.BTRTI

1x16 MVA

GI.PSGRN

2x30MVA3x60MVA

GI.AMPRA

TR 1x20 MVATR 1x30 MVA

GI. NGARA

GI. GLMNK

PLTG GILIMANUK

2x10MVA 2x15MVA

2x20MVA1x30MVA

UP.BALITR 2x30MVATR 2x20MVA

GI. NSDUA

GI.SANUR

GI.GNYAR

1x30MVA

GI. KAPAL

GI. ASARI

1x10MVA1x30 MVA

Undersea CableJawa-Bali2x110MW

GI.PYANG1x30 MVA

GI.PBIAN

1x60 MVA

2x60MVA

PLTG

1x60MVA 1x60 MVA

1x60 MVA

GI.PKLOD

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Peak Load 572 594 617 640 662 685 708 730 753 775

Supply Capacity 596 596 596 596 596 596 596 596 596 596

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

MW

Year

Load Forecasting vs Capacity 2011-2020


2084

be more expensive than alternative-2. But within

investment context, it could be more economic with

more advantages. By installing two circuits

simultaneously, it will save rock dumping cost (it is

the highest cost in installation project, which is about

60%-70% from the total project cost). This alternative

could also replace the more expensive power plant’s

operational cost.

The recent evolution of monetary crisis has

substantially affect the funding of the private industrial

sector. To Survive in the present condition and have a

fast recovering, it tries to invest in production plant,

with a limited capital and more especially for the

corresponding electrical installation [4].

To determine the best alternative, LCC (life cycle

cost) method can be used (Fig. 4). LCC helps change

provincial perspectives for business issues with

emphasis on enhancing economic competitiveness by

working for the lowest long term cost of ownership [5,

6]. The objective of life cycle cost analysis is to

choose the most cost effective approach from a series

of alternatives to achieve the lowest long-term cost

ownership [5]. In this paper, life cycle cost method

use 10 years for study period (2011-2020).

3. Developing Life Cycle Cost Model

In this project, the cost breakdown structure will

involve costs in these categories [7]: (1) capital or

investment cost; (2) operation and maintenance cost;

and (3) savings (Fig. 5). Capital or investment costs

comprise of four costs, these are: material costs, civil

construction costs, electrical construction costs and

tranportation, survey & comissioning costs. Operation

and maintenance costs comprise of three costs, these

are: scheduled maintenance costs, unscheduled

maintenance costs and ENS (energy not served). While

saving is assumed as operational substitution between

power plant and high voltage undersea cable which has

lower cost of production.

All of the cost details will be converted to a base cost

of today. In other word, life cycle cost methode will

calculate all of the cost detail in present value.

3.1 Capital/Investment

Investment is the initial cost prepared for material

procurement, civil construction, electrical construction

and transportation, survey & comissionong cost. The

detail of the capital cost listed as shown in Table 2.

3.2 Maintenance

There are two maintenances in undersea cable 150

kV installation, these are scheduled and unscheduled

maintenance. Scheduled maintenance is fixed cost that

has an annually flat cost. While unscheduled

maintenance is a variable cost that depends on outage

condition. It is also an unpredictable event that is dificcult

Fig. 4 Life cycle cost model [5].


2085

Fig. 5 Cost breakdown structure.

Table 2 Detail capital cost [2].

Detail work Total costs (US$)

Circuit III Circuit III& IV

Material procurement 5,920.014 12,288.727

Udersea cable 150 kV 300 sq.mm. 4,737.720 9,475.440

XLPE cable 150 kV 300 sq.mm. 757.187 1,514.374

Jointing and termination 310.539 1,116.381

Other materials 114.568 182.532

Civil work 28,123.752 46,811.587

Concrete construction 1,332.887 2,119.409

Rock dumping protection construction 26,754.184 44,590.307

Main hole for XLPE 150 kV cable 2.350 9.645

XLPE cable 150 kV planting 8.349 16.698

Other civil work 25.983 75.529

Electrical work 2,753.842 4,852.698

Undersea cable installation 2,281.630 3,802.717

XLPE cable installation 282.441 564.881

Termination 89.483 178.966

Jointing 95.483 290.391

Other electrical work 4.806 15.742Transportation, survey, and commissioning

451.592

646.987

to determine. Therefore, it is usually determined based

on historical data or statistic. Based on the record of

undersea cable 150 kV circuit I and II, it had unique.

During 2004-2009, there were no internal outages. All

of the outages were external. The outages happened

mostly in the high voltage overhead transmission

connected to the undersea cable. So when one circuit

was experiencing an outage, the other circuit became

trip, and as a consequence the system failed to fulfill N-1

standard security resulting in the power supply from

Java to Bali got disconnected. The record of the outages

during 2004-2009 can be seen in Table 3.

Based on these conditions, life cycle cost methode

used a flat unscheduled costs annually. This policy may

be applied temporary while no outage occured during

2004-2005 [3]. It is possible to change when the

outages occured.

3.3 ENS (Energy Not Saved)

ENS occurs when installed capacity is inadequate to

keep or serve the demand. In other words, it occurs in

power deficit condition. It can be assumed that ENS

will occur during peak load hour. In Indonesia, daily

peak load occurs during for 5 hours, which is from

05:00 PM to 10:00 PM. The difference between

installed capacity and peak load during peak load time

is ENS (energy not served). ENS = (PL – IC) × PL duration (1)

where:

ENS = energy not served (kWh);

PL = peak load (kW);

IC = installed capacity (kW);

PL duration = peak load duration (hour).

ENS means loss of oportunity to get profits. So it is a

financial consequence. In normal condition PLN can

get 76 IDR/kWh for transmission unit [8]. However,

because of ENS, PLN will suffer 76 IDR/kWh × ENS.

This paper is assumed that 1 USD = 9,000 IDR.

3.4 Savings

Currently, the system in Bali is supplied by 63%

local generators with HSD fuel which has an expensive

tariff (Table 1). This local generator tariff is more

expensive compared to the tariff in the system of Java

through high voltage undersea cable 150 kV. Installing

the additional undersea cable 150 kV Java-Bali means

increase the economical value of energy in Bali.

Therefore it could decrease the operating time of local

generators. Using the cheaper tariff means savings.

Savings is the difference between energy price that is

bought a more expensive tariff and the cheaper one. It

can be also assumed that savings will occur during

peak load hour (for 5 hours) because in average load,

the local generators are not fully operating anyway.


2086

Table 3 Outage record [3].

Event Duration (Hour)

Year Failure circuit

Power loss (kW)

Malfunction 5.35 2004 I 54.615

Kite thread disturbance 1.15 2007 II 106.476


Broken isolator 0.55 2007 I 53.238


Lightening 4.88 2009 II 114.607

Total 14.47

However, not all of the generators could be reduced.

Pesanggaran power plant is not permitted to be turned

off because it is located near the load centre, Denpasar

City. So, Gilimanuk power plant is the most possible

power plant which could be reduced operationally

because of its distance from the load center (Fig. 2).

S = (IC – PL) × (Local Tariff – Java Tariff) × PL

duration (2)

where:

S = savings (USD);

Local Tariff = gilimanuk powerplant Tariff (USD);

Java Tariff = system of java tarif (USD).

Alternative-1: In the do nothing case, the cost

breakdown structure will only incur operational and

maintenance costs. There is no investment or capital

costs. The load forecasting (Fig. 3) showed that

existing power capacity will not meet the demand in

the future. Consequently, Bali’s system will become

deficit and some demand or load will not be able to be

served. It means that ENS (energy not served) in

alternative-1 will be more. The more ENS incur, the

more profit will be lost. This ENS will be deemed to be

a part of operational and maintenance cost. In

alternative-1 saving will not occur because of the

energy deficit.

Alternative-2: For the installation of undersea cable

150 kV circuit III & IV step by step. Circuit III will be

installed in 2012 to meet the demand until 2017. Then

circuit IV will be installed in 2017 to meet the demand

until 2020. So in this alternative the investment or

capital cost will incurred twice, in 2012 and 2017. In

this alternative, the cost breakdown structure will incur

cost in these categories: capital costs (twice, in 2012

and in 2017), operation and maintenance costs and

savings. ENS will not incur until 2020. Power import

from Java which has lower price will substitute existing

power plant operational.

Alternative-3: the cost that incur in this alternative is

equal to the costs in alternative-2. In this alternative,

investment cost for circuit III and IV incured

simultaneously, so it will be higher than the first

investment in alternative-2. However, it has more

economic rock dumping cost.

All of the costs that incur along the study period are

calculated based on present value. The alternative

which has the least will be the most effective

alternative [9].

NPV (net present value) is an important economic

measure for projects or equipment taking into account

discount factors and cash flow. The PV (present value)

of an investment is the maximum amount a firm could

pay for the opportunity of making the investment

without being financially handicapped. The NPV (net

present value) is the present value of proceeds minus

present value of outlays. Net present value calculations

start with a interest rate, followed by finding the

present value of the cash proceeds expected from the

investment, then followed by finding the present value

of the outlays: the net of this calculation is the net

present value. Clearly high NPV projects and processes

provide wealth for the stockholders. Cash availability

and strategies aside, when competing projects are

judged for acceptance, the project with the greatest

NPV is usually the winner [10].

The annual costs for each alternative is shown in

Table 4-6. The graph of total cost for each alternative

could be seen in Fig. 6-8.

PV = FV [

] (3)

where:

PV = present value;

FV = future value;

i = interest rate (%);

n = numbers of years.

Total Cost = Capital Cost + O & M Cost – Savings (4)


2087

Table 4 Annual cost of alternative-1 (USD).

Alternative-1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Capital costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Material costs

Civil construction costs

Electrical construction costs

Operation and maintenance costs 0 875.297 875.297 1.331.383 1.934.626 2.676.080 3.580.229 4.675.442 5.994.556 7.575.534 9.462.230

Scheduled maintenance costs 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669 248.669

Non scheduled maintenance costs 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628 626.628

Energi not served 0 0 0 456.086 1.059.329 1.800.783 2.704.932 3.800.145 5.119.259 6.700.237 8.586.933

Savings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annual savings

Cash flow 0 875.297 875.297 1.331.383 1.934.626 2.676.080 3.580.229 4.675.442 5.994.556 7.575.534 9.462.230

Discount factors @ 12% 1.00 0.89 0.80 0.71 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32

Present value 0 781.515 697.781 947.652 1.229.480 1.518.480 1.813.855 2.114.933 2.421.100 2.731.814 3.046.585

Net present value 17,303.205


Alternative-1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Capital costs 0 0 37.249.201 37.249.201

Material costs 5.920.014 5.920.014

Civil construction costs 28.123.752 28.123.752 Electrical construction costs

2.753.842 2.753.842

Transportation, survey, and commissioning costs

451.529 451.529

Operation and maintenance costs

0 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945 1.312.945

Scheduled maintenance costs

373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004 373.004

Non scheduled maintenance costs

939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942 939.942

Energi not served 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Savings 0 0 0 15.119.898 13.549.831 8.928.170 4.306.509 15.119.898 15.119.898 12.917.049 8. 295.388

Annual savings 0 15.119.898 13.549.831 8.928.170 4.306.509 15.119.898 15.119.898 12.917.049 8. 295.388

Cash flow 0 1.312.945 38.562.146 -13.806.952 -12.236.885 -7.615.224 -2.993.563 23.442.248 -13.806.952 -11.604.103 -6.982.442

Discount factors @ 12% 100 0.89 0.80 0.71 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32

Present value 0 1.172.273 30.741.507 -9.827.516 -7.776.762 -4.321.083 -1.516.632 10.604.083 -5.576.397 -4.184.556 -2.248.160

Net present value 7,066.757

The interest rate used in PLN for the last 10 years is

between 10% until 12%. All of LCC calculation in this

paper uses mean interest rate of 12%. To determine the

best alternatives, the cumulative present value (NPV)

of each alternative is compared (Table 7).

This comparison can be seen in Fig. 9 as follows:

From Fig. 9, It can be seen that alternative-1 has

lower cost in the initial of project, but then increasing

in the following years. The growth of the cost in

alternative-1 is caused by increasing ENS besides

operational and maintenance costs. Alternative-2 and

alternative-3 has higher costs in initial project, then

decreases in the next years. The steep cost in initial

project is caused by the capital cost, but it decreases

continuously because of saving.

Based on Fig. 9, it can be summarized that

alternative-3 has the lowest NPV along the 10 years

(2011-2020) period.

5. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis allows study of LCC key

parameters [11]. One factor which increases the

significance of sensitivity analysis is the interest rate

that needs to be used when addressing future life cycle


2088


Alternative-3 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Capital costs 0 0 64.599.999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Material costs 12.288.727

Civil construction costs 46.811.587 Electrical construction costs

4.852.698

Transportation, survey, and comcommissioning costs

646.987

Operation and maintenance costs

0 1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

1.750.594

Scheduled maintenance costs

497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339 497.339

Non scheduled maintenance costs

1.253.2551.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

1.253.255

Energi not served 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Savings 0 0 0 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 12.917.049 8.295.388

Annual savings 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 15.119.898 12.917.049 8.295.388

Cash flow 0 1.750.594 66.350.593 -13.369.304 -13.369.304 -13.369.304 -13.369.304 -13.369.304 -13.369.304 -11.166.455 -6.544.794

Discount factors @ 12% 1.00 0.89 0,80 0.71 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.32

Present value 0 1.563.030 52.894.286 -9.516.007 -8.496.434 -7.586.102 -6.773.305 -6.047.594 -5.399.638 -4.026.736 -2.107.248

Net present value 4.504.252

Fig. 6 Total cost of alternative-1.



Fig. 9 The comparison of PV cumulative.

Table 7 Comparison of NPV on each alternative.

Alternatives NPV (US$)

Alternative-1 17,303.205



costs. Choosing the right interest rate is not easy,

because it depends for example on the risk-level of the

project, market situation, credit rating of the company

and on many other factors [12].

The interest rate can affect the outcome of a life

cycle cost analysis in that certain alternatives may be

favored by higher or lower interest rate. High interest

rate favor alternatives that stretch out costs over a

period of time, since the future costs are discounted in

relation to the initial cost. A low interest rate favors

0

1.000.000

2.000.000

3.000.000

4.000.000

5.000.000

6.000.000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Costs (US$)

Years

Total Costs Alternative‐1

‐20.000.000

‐10.000.000

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

40.000.000

50.000.000

60.000.000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Costs (US$)

Years

Total Costs Alternative‐2

PV Capital costs PV Operation and Maintenance costs PV Savings PV Alt‐2

‐20.000.000

‐10.000.000

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

40.000.000

50.000.000

60.000.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Costs (US$)

Year

PV Capital costs PV Operation and Maintenance costs PV Savings PV Alt‐3

Total Cost Alternative‐3

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

40.000.000

50.000.000

60.000.000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

PV Cumulative

(US$)

Year

PV cummulative Alt‐1




2089

Fig. 10 Sensitivity analysis of interest rate.

high initial cost alternatives since future costs are

added in at almost face value. All costs are treated

equally regardless of an interest rate is equal to zero.

The interest rate will have a minor effect on the

analysis and initial costs will have a larger effect where

alternative strategies have similar maintenance,

rehabilitation, and operating costs [9].

There are some variables related to LCC calculation

that have varying effects such as interest rate and

analysis period. Interest rate is an economic variable so

it is assumed to be more sensitive than others. Fig. 10

shows the NPVs in various interest rates.

Based on Fig. 10, it can be seen that the balancing

point between alternative-2 and 3 is 14% (with goal

seek function, it is found 14.73% exactly), while the

balancing point between alternative-1 and alternative-3

is 23.44%. In case interest rate is lower than 14.73%,

alternative-3 is better, but in the case where interest rate

is higher than 14.73%, alternative-2 is better.

6. Conclusions

In life cycle cost analysis for the project of high

voltage undersea cable installation, the cost breakdown

structure that will incur are these costs: capital cost,

operational and maintenance costs and savings.

The results using life cycle cost method are

markedly affected by interest rate. Low interest rates

favor those alternatives that combine large capital

investments with low maintenance or user costs. High

interest rates favor the reversed combinations.

Based on life cycle cost analysis with 12% interest

rate, alternative-3, which is to install undersea cable

150 kV circuit III & IV simultaneously in 2012, is the

best alternative. Alternative-3 is preferable in the case

where interest rate is below 14.73%.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks to National Electricity Company

(PT. PLN (Persero)) and Bandung Institute of

Technology (ITB) for group discussion, data and

valuable support during this research.

References

[1] N.I. Sinisuka, B.H. Priyadi, Experience in service of submarine power cables 150 kV in Bali Strait, in: JICABLE’99, Paris, France, June 20-24, 1999.

[2] Masterplan Electricity, 2009-2018, PLN, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2009, pp. 40-41.

[3] Java-Bali Transmission and Load Dispatch, East Java and Bali Region, Disturbance Data Report, PLN, Surabaya, Indonesia, 2004-2009.

[4] N.I. Sinisuka, The Use of value Engineering Techniques to Study the Reliability of High Voltage Transmission System in Tropical Country, IEEE, Tokyo, 2002.

[5] W.J. Fabrycky, B.S. Blanchard, Life-Cycle Cost and Economic Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey, USA, 1991, pp. 136-139, 332-352.

[6] I. Jeromin, J. Backes, G. Balzer, R. Huber, Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Transmission and Distribution Systems, in: CIRED, Prague, Czech Republic, June 8-11, 2009, pp. 1-4.

[7] N.I. Sinisuka, H. Nugraha, Life cycle cost analysis on the operation of coal fired power plant unit #1 330 MW indramayu, West Java, Indonesia, in: Proceedings of 4th Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Advanced Reliability and Maintenance Modeling, New Zealand, 2010, pp. 632-639.

[8] Electricity Cost of Production, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Jakarta, Indonesia, 2008.

[9] Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Engineering Services Division Value Engineering, Utah Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C, USA, 2007, pp. 1-10.

[10] P. Barringer, D. Weber, Life cycle cost tutorial, in: Fifth International Conference on Process Plant Reliability, Houston, Texas, 1996.

[11] P. Barringer, Download free life cycle cost software [Online], 1996, http://www.barringer1.com.

[12] R.A. Brealey, S.C. Myers, Principles of Corporate Finance, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.

‐30.000.000

‐20.000.000

‐10.000.000

0

10.000.000

20.000.000

30.000.000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39NPV (US$)

Interest rate (%)

alt_1 alt_2 alt_3

Documents

The Use of Life Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine the Most Effective Cost of Installation High Voltage Undersea Cable Bali Strait