Environmental Assessment
Volume D-1
Process Plant
Alternatives Considered
Table 1-2
Analysis of Alternatives – Power and Steam Supply
Alternative
Engineering
Relative-Cost
Environmental
Social
coal fired
(preferred)
moderate efficiency
and availability
moderate capital,
lower operating
costs
moderate fuel
quality, generates
greenhouse gases,
SO
2
/NO
x
minimal impact
potential visible
stack
oil/diesel fired
moderate/higher
efficiency
higher availability
short construction
phase
lower capital,
moderate
operating costs
higher fuel quality,
generates
greenhouse gases,
SO
2
/NO
x
minimal impact
potential visible
stack
gas fired
combustion
cycle
high efficiency
higher availability
no domestic gas
supply
lower capital,
higher operating
costs
higher fuel quality,
generates green
house gasses,
SO
2
/NO
x
minimal impact
potential visible
stack
biomass
lower reliability of
supply
moderate logistics
depending on source
higher/moderate
capital, lower
operating costs
potential high land
use
permitting generally
easier
viewed often as
environmentally
friendly
nuclear
typically for larger
electrical / steam
requirements
higher complexity,
safeguards
higher capital,
lower operating
costs
security and
environmental
concerns with use
of uranium
permitting more
difficult
lower public
acceptability
hydroelectric
does not produce
steam directly
moderate reliability
(seasonal/weather)
requires transmission
line from existing
source
longer construction
phase
higher capital,
lower operating
costs
permitting generally
easier
may impact larger
land base
potential
displacement of
people from
dammed area
viewed often as
environmentally
friendly
renewable
(wind, tidal,
wave action,
solar)
does not produce
steam directly
lower
reliability(seasonal /
weather)
higher/moderate
capital, lower
operating costs
permitting generally
easier
renewable energy
source
viewed often as
environmentally
friendly
Ambatovy Project
2
January 2006
