Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1536

1.818J/2.65J/2.650J/10.291J/10.391J/11.

371J/

22.081J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Fall 2010

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
3-1-8 U & H
Tuesday and Thursday, 3 5 pm
Instructors: R. Field, M. Golay*,
W. Green, Jr., J. Wright
Other faculty and invited speakers
* Instructor-in-charge and point of contact for questions
1

OVERVIEW
Assessment of current and potential future energy systems, covering
resources, extraction, conversion, and end-use, with emphasis on
meeting regional and global energy needs in the 21st century in a
sustainable manner. Different renewable and conventional energy
technologies will be presented and their attributes described within
a framework that aids in evaluation and analysis of energy
technology systems in the context of political, social, economic, and
environmental goals. Undergraduate students should enroll in
Introduction to Sustainable Energy and graduate students should
enroll in Sustainable Energy.

COURSE MATERIAL

Textbook:
Sustainable Energy Choosing Among Options. J.W. Tester,
E.M. Drake, M.W. Golay, M.J. Driscoll, and W.A. Peters. MIT Press,
Cambridge MA, 2005.
Other Readings

Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment. Bisio and Boots,


1995.
Renewable Energy Resources, Twidell and Weir, 2nd Ed., Taylor and Francis,
London, 2006.
Energy for Sustainability: Technology, Planning, Policy. Randolph and Masters,
2008.
Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air. McKay, 2009. (free PDF from
website: http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html)
The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Deutch and
Moniz, Chairs (2005). See: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/
The Future of Geothermal Energy, Tester, et al. (2006). See
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html
The Future of Coal: MIT Coal Study, Deutch, et al. (2007). See:
http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal.pdf
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC): Climate Change
2007: Summary for Policymakers, See: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Bali Action Plan: See:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3
3

COURSE MATERIAL, CONT

Web sites:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemical-engineering/10-391jsustainable-energy-spring-2005/index.htm

COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Lecture/Recitation Format

Two 2-hour lecture sessions per week; periodic replacement with a


recitation and problem session. Many guest lecturers are featured in the
course, and therefore the schedule is subject to change.

Undergraduate Student Requirements


Homework:

Exams:

One problem set per 3-class meeting days on average. The first five
problem sets focus on analytical skills; later problem sets are more
comprehensive and integrating. Eight problem sets total, choose 2 of
4 questions per problem set for the first 5 problem sets, answer each
of the questions in the remaining problem sets.
There will be two take-home exams and one final exam.

UG Grading:

Homework
Exam 1
Exam 2
Final Exam

40%
15%
15%
30%

COURSE REQUIREMENTS,
cont

Graduate Student Requirements


Homework:

Term Project:

One problem set per 3-class meeting days on average. The problem
sets focus on analytical skills. Five problem sets total, choose 3 of 4
questions per problem set. The problem sets are the first five problem
sets (shared with undergraduate offering).
Graduate students will be required to turn in one written term paper
(20-30 pages) with an interim progress report.

Graduate Grading:

Homework
Term Project
Student-led
Discussion
Extra Credit

40%
60%
10% (max)

COURSE ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
Part I: Energy in Context
Part II: Specific Energy Technologies
Part III: Energy End Use, Option Assessment and Tradeoff Analysis
Toolbox Lectures:
1. Energy Transfer and Conversion Methods
2. Energy Resource Assessment
3. Energy Conversion, Transmission, and Storage
4. Systems Analysis Methodologies
5. Energy Supply, Demand, and Storage Planning Methods
6. Electrical Systems Dynamics
7. Economic Feasibility Assessment Methods
8. Thermodynamics and Efficiency Analysis Methods
9. Risk Assessment Methods
Recitations:
1. Discussion of Sustainability Issues
2,3. Carbon Limitation Options 1 and 2
4,5. Current Energy Policy Options 1 and 2
6. Course Summary and Panel Discussion
7

COURSE ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE, CONT

Lectures:
Part I: Energy in Context
1. Introduction
2. Overview of Energy Use and Related Issues
3. Global Change Issues and Responses I
4. Global Change Issues and Responses II
5. Sustainability, Energy, and Clean Technologies in
Context
7. Electric Power System and Requirements for Success
8. Historical Factor and Prospects for Change in the
Electrical Power Grid
9. Carbon Limitation Policy Options

COURSE ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE, CONT
Lectures:
Part II: Specific Energy Technologies
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.

Wind Power
Nuclear Energy I: Current Technologies
Nuclear Energy II: Future Technologies and the Fuel Cycle
Fossil Energy I: Conversion, Power Cycles, Advanced Tech
Fossil Energy II: Types and Characteristics
Cape Wind Energy and Offshore Wind Projects
Current Energy Policy
Fossil Energy III: Fuels, Emissions
Nuclear Energy III: Nuclear Proliferation and Waste Disposal
Electricity Generation Alternatives
Fusion as a Future Energy Source?
Carbon Management Options
Geothermal Energy
Solar Photovoltaic Energy
Solar Thermal Energy
Biomass Energy
Biomass Conversion to Liquid Fuels
Hydropower

COURSE ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE, CONT

Lectures:

Part III: Energy End Use, Option Assessment, and Tradeoff


Analysis
19. Transport in Developing Countries
27. Lifecycle Analysis of Biomass Conversion
28. Wind, System Dynamics, Barriers to Entry
29. Transportation
30. Electrochemical Energy Conversions
31. Eco-Buildings
32. Sustainable Buildings in Developing Countries
33. Corporate and International Efforts to Abate Global
Change/ Sustainability and Global Business
34. Challenges and Options for Electricity Systems in SubSaharan Africa
10

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay


Nuclear Engineering Dept.

ENERGY USES IN DIFFERENT


COUNTRIES

LAS VEGAS STRIP

10

11

12

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

ENERGY USES IN DIFFERENT


COUNTRIES

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Overview of Energy Use and Related Issues

or, Energy - Whats the problem

Dr. John C. Wright

MIT - PSFC

9 SEP 2010

S.E. Lecture 2

Introduction

W ELL KNOWN ISSUES

Energy use is increasing


Raw fuel reserves are limited

Pressure on standard of living


Global warming

S.E. Lecture 2

Introduction

Selecting solutions

S OME PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Replace coal with renewables (wind, solar)


Sequester CO2
Switch to biofuels
Conservation
Add heating insulation
Bring back nuclear

S.E. Lecture 2

Introduction

Selecting solutions

M ORE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Drive smaller cars


Expand use of geothermal
Use oil shale and tar sands for gasoline

Build smaller houses


Increase the efciency of everything
Cars: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fully electric

S.E. Lecture 2

Introduction

Selecting solutions

S TRATEGY A SSESSMENT

Its a hodge-podge
Are all problems being addressed?
Are alternatives compared by means of a cost-benet analysis?
Are we providing sufcient funds for R&D innovations?
Does the media do a good job informing the public?

S.E. Lecture 2

Introduction

Course and this lecture

M AIN C OURSE G OALS

Put logic and order into the energy situation


Develop a comprehensive overview
Learn how to measure and evaluate options
Arm you with the knowledge to make sensible decisions

S.E. Lecture 2

Introduction

Course and this lecture

O UTLINE

Energy uses
Energy consumption

Fuel reserves
The greenhouse effect
Energy technologies

S.E. Lecture 2

Energy usage

E NERGY S OURCES AND U SES

A useful breakdown of energy usage


Heating - gas, oil
Transportation - oil
Electricity - coal, nuclear, gas, hydro

Heating - anything will do


Transportation - need mobile fuel
Electricity - lighting, cooling, industry

S.E. Lecture 2

Energy usage

US E NERGY U SAGE

Electricity

Energy by Application in 2007


Electricity

Transportation
Heating

40%
32%
Heating

28%
Transportation
(EIA-DoE 2007)

S.E. Lecture 2

Energy usage

Resource usage breakdowns

US O IL U SAGE

Transportation vs. heating


Heating
31%

69%

Transportation

S.E. Lecture 2

10

Energy usage

Resource usage breakdowns

US E LECTRICITY B REAKDOWN

How do we obtain electricity?


Electricity Breakdown 2007
Coal

49%
4%
6%

22%
Gas

19%

Other
Hydro

Nuclear
S.E. Lecture 2

11

Energy usage

Resource usage breakdowns

OTHER

Other = 4.1%
Oil

1.61%
Wood

0.01% Solar
0.36%
Geothermal
0.41% 0.78%

0.93%

Waste

S.E. Lecture 2

Wind

12

Energy usage

Resource distribution

W ORLD C OAL R ESERVES = 930423

MILLON SHORT TONS

[data from doe.eia.gov]

Lots of coal in US, Russia, China, India, Australia


Data normalized to peak value.
S.E. Lecture 2

13

Energy usage

Resource distribution

W ORLD G AS R ESERVES = 6189

MILLION MILLION CUBIC FEET

[data from doe.eia.gov]

Gas in Russia

Data normalized to peak value.

S.E. Lecture 2

14

Energy usage

Resource distribution

W ORLD O IL R ESERVES = 1277

THOUSAND MILLION BARRELS

[data from doe.eia.gov]

Oil in Saudi Arabia.

Compare barrels, ft3 , tonnes, short tons, Mtoe

S.E. Lecture 2

15

Energy usage

Supplies

W ORLD E NERGY C ONSUMPTION

104
Oil

Natural Gas

Nuclear Energy

Hydroelectricity

Coal

Mtoe

0.5

2000

1990

1980

1970

Year
Growth in energy usage related to increase population and

standard of living

Note recent reduction in 2008-2009.


S.E. Lecture 2

16

Energy usage

Supplies

H OW LONG WILL THE SUPPLIES LAST ?

Oil and natural gas - 50 years


Coal - 300 years
Oil shale and tar sands - 350 years
Nuclear ssion
Todays light water reactors - 100 years
Future breeders - 10,000 years

Nuclear fusion
DT reaction - 10,000 years
DD reaction

Renewables -

S.E. Lecture 2

17

Energy usage

Supplies

H OW ABOUT USING H INSTEAD OF NUCLEAR TO


REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS ?

Hydrogen is not a naturally occurring fuel


There are no hydrogen mines
It must be manufactured - its an energy carrier

Basic problems are tough

Takes considerable energy to produce hydrogen.

Difcult to transport .

Expensive to transport.

Energy density is low: vs. for gasoline.

S.E. Lecture 2

18

Technologies

T HE M AJOR T ECHNOLOGIES OF I NTEREST

Fossil fuels
Nuclear ssion
Hydroelectric
Renewables
Wind
Solar thermal
Solar voltaic
Biomass
Geothermal
How do these work?

S.E. Lecture 2

19

Technologies

H OW DOES A POWER PLANT WORK ?

Steam
Furnace
Heat
exchanger

Steam
turbine

Water
Makeup water

Electric
generator

Electricity

Exhaust steam
Condenser
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Exhaust steam is waste heat into the environment


Heat engine efciency is given by furnace inlet temperature and
exhaust temperature: = (1 Te /Ti )
S.E. Lecture 2

20

Technologies

R EAL H EAT E NGINES

Oil(gasoline)
Coal

Gas

Nuclear
Images from Israel Electric Company Archive via Pikiwiki, TTTNIS, Sancio83
on Wikimedia Commons, and Andrew J. Ferguson on Flickr.

Power density ~300 W/m2 . Total footprint may be different.


S.E. Lecture 2

21

Technologies

Fossil fuels

F OSSIL F UELS

Put the fuel in a tank and light a match


All fossil fuels use oxygen to burn
All fossil fuels produce large amounts of CO2
All fossil fuels produce some amount of pollution due to impurities
Basic chemical reactions:

Coal
Gas
Gasoline

S.E. Lecture 2

C + O2 CO2 + heat

CH4 + 2O2 CO2 + 2H2 O + heat


C8 H18 + 12.5O2 8CO2 + 9H2 O + heat

22

Technologies

Fossil fuels

T HE P ROBLEMS WITH F OSSIL F UELS

We are running out of gas and oil - US oil production peaked in


1970.
Much of the supply is in unstable parts of the world.
We have a good amount of coal.
All fossil fuels produce large amounts of CO2, which is a

greenhouse gas.

Carbon sequestration is not yet a proven technology.

S.E. Lecture 2

23

Technologies

Fossil fuels

R EVIEW THE G REENHOUSE E FFECT

How do greenhouse gasses

cause global warming?

Radiation from the sun hits the

earth

Most is in the visible frequency

range

Some is reected, most

absorbed.

Re-radiation rate depends on

temperature ( T 4 )

At equilibrium the earth

reaches a high enough

temperature so that

Image

created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art.

Power in = Power out


S.E. Lecture 2

24

Technologies

Fossil fuels

P OLLUTION

Shangai

Bombay

Courtesy of Michael Golay. Used with permission.

S.E. Lecture 2

25

Technologies

Nuclear

N UCLEAR F UEL

More difcult than fossil fuel


Natural uranium
99.3%238 U + 0.7%235 U
Only 235 U produces energy by ssion
Complicated enrichment needed for 4% 235 U
Place fuel rods in a reactor vessel

S.E. Lecture 2

26

Technologies

Nuclear

N UCLEAR F UEL

Containment
structure

Water
vapor

Pressurizer
Reactor vessel
Control
rods

Reactor
core

Water coolant
(330 C)

Alternator

Liquid

Condenser

Pump

Cooling
tower

Cooling
water
Water coolantPump
(280 C)
Pressurized water
(primary loop)

S.E. Lecture 2

Turbine

Steam generatorVapor
(heat change)

Pump
Water and steam
(secondary loop)

Water
(cooling loop)

27

Technologies

Nuclear

BASIC N UCLEAR R EACTION

After several intermediate steps the key nuclear reaction is


n + 235 U 2 ssion products + 2.5n + 6 + 10 + 10 + energy
A large amount of energy is released
This is converted to heat
1 nuclear reaction = 1,000,000 fossil reaction

S.E. Lecture 2

28

Technologies

Hydro

H YDROELECTRIC

Put your paddle wheel into owing water


Attach the shaft of the wheel to a generator
Voila - electricity
Main source of energy is gravity
Key power relation is given by:
Power =(hydraulic head)(ow rate)(efciency)
=gh[J/m3 ] Q[m3 /s] [%]
Implied power density is low. Hydraulic head is 0.27 kWh/m3 at
100m.
Need large reservoirs to store water (power density ~3 W/m2 )

S.E. Lecture 2

29

Technologies

Hydro

S CHEMATIC DIAGRAM

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Tennessee Valley Authority.

Image by Mikhail Ryazanov on Wikimedia Commons.

S.E. Lecture 2

30

Technologies

Hydro

H YDROELECTRIC P LANT

Photo by Lynn Betts, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

S.E. Lecture 2

31

Technologies

Other

W IND P OWER

Wind turns the windmill blades


Mechanical motion converted to the shaft of a generator,
producing electricity
Low power density (~2 W/m2 )
Cape Wind - 25 square miles of water
Produces 400 MWe peak
Produces 130 MWe average

S.E. Lecture 2

32

Technologies

Other

W IND P OWER IN Q UEBEC

Photo by Andr Cotte on Flickr.

S.E. Lecture 2

33

Technologies

Other

S OLAR

Peak normal solar irradiance is 1kW/m2 (at surface, 1.366 kW at


top of atmosphere, known as the solar constant)
The suns energy can make electricity
There are two ways:
Solar thermal

Rays are focused

Focused rays can heat water

Water turns to steam to make electricity

Solar voltaic
The sunlight impinges on a solar voltaic cell

The energy is directly converted into DC electricity

S.E. Lecture 2

34

Technologies

Other

S OLAR E NERGY

Photos by Sandia National Labs and Rainer Lippert on Wikimedia Commons.

Like wind, the power density is low


Peak power produced is about 100 - 200 W/m2
Average power is about 30 - 60 W/m2
25 square miles produces about 100 - 200 MW on average
S.E. Lecture 2

35

Technologies

Other

B IOMASS

Burn wood, plants, etc.


Burn lots of it
Huge land area required
Potential for new discoveries

Photo by Dattodesign on Flickr.

S.E. Lecture 2

36

Technologies

Other

G EOTHERMAL

Dig a hole in the ground


Keep digging until you reach
steam or hot water - steam
mixture under pressure
This hot uid is forced to the
surface
Use it to make steam
Use the steam to make

electricity

Pump the water back into the


earth

S.E. Lecture 2

Image from EERE.

37

Technologies

Other

D ISCUSSION

Questions?

S.E. Lecture 2

38

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

CLIMATE CHANGE:
SCIENCE, ECONOMICS and POLICY

Ronald G. Prinn

!"#$%&()*+,##-. /0!

Image by NASA. From Visible Earth.

PRESENTATION TO
22.811J: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
MIT, CAMBRIDGE MA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010

IMAGES
From
NASAs
TERRA
satellite

HOW HAS TEMPERATURE EVOLVED OVER THE PAST 130 YEARS?


Global annual surface air temperature anomaly as estimated from obser vations by NASA-GISS,
NOAA-NCDC, & UKMO-Hadley Center Climatic Research Unit (Hansen et al, 2010). 

Source: Hansen, J., et al. "Global Surface Temperature


Change." Review of Geophysics 48 (2010): RG4004.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010RG000345.

CLIMATE FORCING DUE TO INCREASES IN GREENHOUSE GASES AND


AEROSOLS FROM 1850-2005 WAS:
2
1
1.6 W m x 5.1 x 10 4 m2 = 8.16 x 1014 W = 816 TW (about 52 times cur rent
global energy consumption)

HOW HAVE GLOBAL & CONTINENTAL TEMPERATURES CHANGED


OVER THE PAST CENTURY (1906-2005), AND WHY?

Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups


I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Figure SPM.4. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

Black lines:obser ved changes. Blue bands: range for 19 model simulations using natural
forcings. Red bands: range for 51 model simulations using natural and human forcings.
Ref: IPCC 4th Assessment, Summar y for Policymakers, 2007

TWO COMMON WAYS TO EXPRESS POLICY GOALS


FOR CLIMATE MITIGATION
(1) AIM TO KEEP GLOBAL GREENHOUSE GASES BELOW
SPECIFIED LEVELS
(for this purpose levels of non-CO2 gases are typically
converted to their equivalent levels of CO2 that would
have the same effect on climate; we are currently at
about 470 ppm CO2 equivalents)
(2) AIM TO KEEP GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASES
BELOW SPECIFIED AMOUNTS
(relative to say pre-industrial or 1990; we are currently
about 0.8oC above pre-industrial)
BUT THESE SIMPLE CONCEPTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SIGNIFICANT
UNCERTAINTIES IN PROJECTIONS OF ECONOMIES AND CLIMATE:
NEED TO EVALUATE POLICIES BASED ON THEIR ABILITY TO LOWER RISK,
AND RE-EVALUATE DECISIONS OVER TIME

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GREENHOUSE GAS


STABILISATION TARGETS AND TEMPERATURE CHANGE
TARGETS UNDER UNCERTAINTY?

WE USE THE MIT INTEGRATED GLOBAL SYSTEM MODEL

Cumulative PROBABILITY OF GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE AIR WARMING


from 1981-2000 to 2091-2100, WITHOUT (1400 ppm-eq CO2) & WITH A 550,
660, 790 or 900 ppm-equivalent CO2 GHG STABILIZATION POLICY
(400 forecasts per case. Ref: Sokolov et al, Journal of Climate, 2009)

T > 2oC
T

T > 4oC

T > 6oC

(values in red relative to


1860 or pre-industrial)
pre-industrial))

No Policy at 1400

100% (100%)

85%

25%

Stabilize at 900 (L4)

100% (100%)

25%

0.25%

Stabilize at 790 (L3)

97% (100%)

7%

< 0.25%

Stabilize at 660 (L2)

80% (97%)

0.25%

< 0.25%

Stabilize at 550 (L1)

25% (80%)

< 0.25%

< 0.25%

WITH THESE PROBABILITIES FOR WARMING EXCEEDING 2oC ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL,


HOW FEASIBLE IS A POLICY TARGET TO LIMIT WARMING TO LESS THAN 2oC?

POLES WARM MUCH


FASTER THAN TROPICS;
IF ICE SHEETS MELT, HOW
MUCH SEA LEVEL
RISE COULD OCCUR?
West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Map showing retreat of Greenland coastline due to 7 meters sea level


rise has been removed due to copyright restrictions. See page 21 in
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). "Impacts of a Warming Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment." Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Ice Dome

Ice Dome

Ice Shield

STABILITY OF GREENLAND ICE


SHEET
Lithosphere

Continental
Shell Edge

5 Meters Sea Level Rise


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

STABILITY OF WEST ANTARCTIC


ICE SHEET
REFs: Bindschadler et al; ACIA, Impacts of a Warming
Arctic, Climate Impact Assessment Report, 2004

The last time the polar regions


were significantly warmer (~4 oC)
than present for an extended
period (about 125,000 years ago),
reductions in polar ice volume led
to 4 to 6 meters of sea level rise.

Map showing retreat of Greenland coastline due to 7 meters sea level


rise has been removed due to copyright restrictions. See page 21 in
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). "Impacts of a Warming Arctic
Climate Impact Assessment." Cambridge University Press, 2004.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF


ARCTIC TUNDRA &
PERMAFROST THAWS?
IS ARCTIC SEA ICE AT
THE END OF WINTER &
SUMMER DECREASING?
Time series of the
percent difference in ice
extent in March (the
month of ice extent
maximum) and
September (the month of
ice extent minimum)
relative to the mean
values for the period
19792000.

THIS WOULD INDUCE EMISSION OVER


TIME OF THE 1670 BILLION TONS OF
CARBON STORED IN ARCTIC TUNDRA
& FROZEN SOILS (TARNOCAI ET AL,
GBC, 2009). THIS IS ABOUT 200 TIMES
CURRENT ANNUAL ANTHROPOGENIC
CARBON EMISSIONS. THESE EMISSIONS
WOULD INCLUDE METHANE FROM NEW
& WARMER WETLANDS.
REF: ACIA, Impacts of a Warming
Arctic, Climate Impact Assessment
Report, 2004

For the period 1979-2009, the


rate of decrease of ice extent
is 2.5% per decade (March)
and 8.9% per decade
(September).
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/sea_ice.html

Image from Perovich, D., et al. "Sea Ice Cover."


Arctic Report Card 2010, NOAA.

IF THE POLAR LATITUDES WARM TOO MUCH, COULD


THE DEEP OCEAN CARBON & HEAT SINK COLLAPSE?

Runs of the MIT IGSM 3D OCEAN MODEL


with 100 years of CO2 INCREASE then
STABILIZATION of CO2 for 900 years
indicate IRREVERSIBLE COLLAPSE of
OCEANIC OVERTURN if CO2 exceeds 620
ppm and CLIMATE SENSITIVITY exceeds
its current best estimate of 3.5oC

OVERTURN DRIVEN
BY SINKING WATER
IN THE POLAR SEAS
(Norwegian, Greenland,
Labrador,Weddell, Ross)

SLOWED BY DECREASED
SEA ICE & INCREASED
FRESH WATER INPUTS
INTO THESE SEAS
INCREASED RAINFALL,
SNOWFALL & RIVER
FLOWS, & DECREASED
SEA ICE, EXPECTED WITH
GLOBAL WARMING
OCEAN BOTTOM DEPTHS (meters)
(MIT IGSM 3D OCEAN MODEL
Ref: Scott et al, MIT Joint Program Report 148, Climate Dynamics, v30, p441-454, 2008

WHAT ARE THE PROJECTED PATTERNS OF CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE (oC)


AND RAINFALL (%) (e.g. FOR NORTH AMERICA)?

MAXIMUM WARMING IN HIGH LATITUDE REGIONS

MAXIMUM % PRECIPITATION INCREASE IN POLAR REGIONS


Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I
Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, Figure 11.15. Cambridge University Press.
Top row: Annual mean, DJF and JJA temperature change between 1980 to 1999 and 2080 to 2099, averaged
over 21 models with A1B emissions scenario (-1 to +10oC).
Bottom row: same as top, but for fractional change in precipitation (+/-50%).
Ref: IPCC 4th Assessment, Working Group 1, Chapter 11, 2007

TYPHOONS/CYCLONES/HURRICANES & OCEANIC WARMING:


INCREASING DESTRUCTIVENESS OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS?

Power
Dissipation
Index (PDI)
= T0 Vmax3 dt
(a measure
of storm
destruction)

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature.


Source: Emanuel, Kerry. "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical
Cyclones over the Past 30 Years." Nature 436 (2005). 2005.

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?


EPPA MODEL Sectors and Technologies
Sectors
Non-Energy
Agriculture
Energy Intensive
Other Industry
Services
Industrial Transport
Household Transport
Other Household Cons.
Energy
Crude & Rened oil,
Biofuel
Shale oil
Coal
Natural gas
Synthetic gas (from coal)
Electricity

Crude slate &


gasoline,
diesel,
petcoke
heavy oil,
biodiesel,
ethanol,
NGLs &
explicit
upgrading

Crops
Livestock
Forestry
Food processing
Biofuel crops
Biomass Elec.

Technologies Included
Fossil (oil, gas & coal)
IGCC with capture
NGCC with capture
NGCC without capture
Nuclear
Hydro
Wind and solar
Biomass

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?


EPPA MODEL Sectors and Technologies
Sectors
NonEnergy
Agriculture
EnergyIntensive
OtherIndustry
Services
IndustrialTransport
HouseholdTransport
OtherHouseholdCons.
Energy
Crude&Renedoil,
Biofuel
Shaleoil
Coal
Naturalgas
SyntheCcgas(fromcoal)
Electricity

Transport Alternatives
Conventional Gasoline/Diesel
(continue to improve)
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Pure Electric Vehicle
Bio-fueled Vehicle
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle

USING EPPA MODEL, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY FOR GLOBAL


MITIGATION COSTS (expressed as % WELFARE* LOSSES in 2050),
WITH A 550, 660, 790 or 900 ppm-eq CO2 STABILIZATION POLICY?

WL>1%

WL>2%

WL>3%

No Policy

Stabilize at
900

1%

0.25%

<0.25%

Stabilize at
790

3%

0.5%

<0.25%

Stabilize at
660

25%

2%

0.5%

Stabilize at
550

70%

30%

10%

*Approximately the total consumption of goods & ser vices

WHAT IS THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE TO


TRANSFORM THE GLOBAL ENERGY SYSTEM?
e.g. Using EPPA Model, Global Primar y Energy for a ~660
ppm CO2-equivalent stabilization scenario with nuclear
restricted.

Efficiency
Gains
(Transport
& Buildings)

Coal
Gas

IF UNRESTRICTED,
NUCLEAR COMPETES WITH
& COULD REPLACE COAL
WITH CCS.
SOLAR & WIND NEED
LARGE COST REDUCTIONS
TO COMPETE.

Oil
*Carbon price ~$1750/tonC in 2100

Biofuels
Nuclear

Coal
with C
capture
and
storage

ARE THERE ISSUES REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF


LAND FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AT LARGE SCALES?
For bio-fuels to provide 240 EJ/year (7.5 TW or 60% of current demand or
18% of 2100 demand) requires more than 3.4 billion acres of land
dedicated to crops producing ethanol, which is 8.5 times the total US
cropland, assuming 40% efficiency in the conversion of the biomass
(cellulose).
FRACTION OF LAND IN 2100 DEVOTED TO BIO-FUELS PRODUCTION for TRANSPORTATION,
etc. WITH A 660 ppm CO2-equivalent STABILIZATION POLICY & DEFORESTATION

ISSUES FOR CONCERN


COMPETITION WITH FOOD FOR LAND & WATER
GREENHOUSE GAS RELEASE DURING LAND CONVERSION
LOSS OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS (TROPICAL FORESTS)
CLIMATE EFFECTS OF LAND CONVERSION

Ref: Melillo,
et al, 2009

SOLAR PANELS WARM INSTALLED DESERT


REGIONS & WARM/COOL ELSEWHERE
WHAT ARE
EFFECTS OF
SOLAR ARRAYS AT
LARGE SCALES
(5.3 TW OVER
SAHARAN &
ARABIAN
DESERTS) ON
SUNLIGHT
ABSORPTION (W/
m2) AND SURFACE
TEMPERATURE
(oC)?
(Ref: Wang & Prinn,
2009)

NEED BACKUP
GENERATION CAPACITY,
POSSIBLY INCLUDING ONSITE ENERGY STORAGE

Photo by Sint Smeding on Flickr.

CAN AVOID THESE EFFECTS BY


ADDING REFLECTORS TO THE
ARRAY TO YIELD ORIGINAL
REFLECTIVITY

WHAT ARE EFFECTS OF


WINDMILL ARRAYS AT
LARGE SCALES ON
SURFACE TEMPERATURE
OVER SEMI-ARID LAND
(L, 5TW, 58 million km2)
(Ref: Wang & Prinn,
Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
2010)

WINDMILLS WARM INSTALLED LAND


REGIONS & WARM/COOL ELSEWHERE

LINEAR ARRAYS
PERPENDICULAR TO WINDS
FAVORED

INTERMITTENCY CHALLENGE:
Twenty-year averages and
standard deviations of the
monthly mean wind power
consumption (dKE/dt) by
simulated windmills installed
in: North America (NA), South
America (SA), Africa and
Middle East (AF), Australia
(AU), and Eurasia (EA).

NEED BACKUP GENERATION


CAPACITY, POSSIBLY INCLUDING
ON-SITE ENERGY STORAGE

Source: Wang, C., and R. G. Prinn. "Potential Climatic Impacts


and Reliability of Very Large-Scale Wind Farms."
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 10 (2010): 2053-2061.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-2053-2010.

CLIMATE MITIGATION and/or


ENERGY SECURITY?

Security
Concerns


Oil
Foreign balance
Political
dependence

Harmonies

Conflicts

Policy reduces
demand and
enhances biomass
fuels

Off-shore Drilling
Dirty substitutes
BUTSands,
MOST
Tar
CONFLICTS
Shale, Coal
ALLEVIATED
liquids

WITH
Shift
to coal in
CARBON
electric
power
CAPTURE
AND
STORAGE

Natural gas
Political
dependence

Policy reduces
demand and
enhances supply
diversity

Nuclear
Proliferation
Safety & Waste

Policy encourages
needed regulatory
reform

Shift to coal

CLIMATE ADAPTATION in addition to


CLIMATE MITIGATION?
WE ARE ALREADY COMMITTED TO SOME UNAVOIDABLE
WARMING EVEN AT CURRENT GREENHOUSE GAS
LEVELS (ABOUT 0.6oC; IPCC, 2007)
ADAPTATION CAN HELP IN THE SHORT TERM WHILE
MITIGATION HELPS IN THE LONG TERM
ADAPTATION MEASURES SHOULD INCLUDE:
WATER MANAGEMENT (QUALITY, QUANTITY)
FOOD PRODUCTION (FLEXIBILITY, GENETICS)
DEFENDING OR RETREATING FROM COASTAL REGIONS
HUMAN HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE (HEAT, DISEASE)
DEFENSE AGAINST SEVERE STORMS
REBUILDING PERMAFROST INFRASTRUCTURE

HOW CAN WE EXPRESS THE VALUE OF A


CLIMATE POLICY UNDER UNCERTAINTY?

Compared
with NO
POLICY

A NEW WHEEL
W hat would we
with lower odds
buy with STABILIZATION
of EXTREMES
at 660 ppm-equivalent of CO2?

http://web.mit.edu/global change

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Energy Transfer and

Conversion Methods

MIT 10.391J/22.811J/ESD.166J/11.371J/1.818J/3.564J/2.65J

9/16/2010

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Mission of this Session

Introduce the importance and challenges of


Energy Conversion
Diffuse
Diffuse energy sources
Thermodynamic limits
Rate processes

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Energy Conversion
Energy Conversion is the process of
changing energy from one form to another

Energy
Source

Energy
Conversion

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Useful
Energy

Historic Energy Conversion Sequences

Biomass heat (esp. cooking)


Solar heat, dry clothes, dry food
Solar is still main light source, no need for conversion
Solar is source of biomass, wind, hydro, etc.

Biomass farm animals horsepower, food


Later, people also did these conversions:
Coal heat
Hydro milling flour, running machinery
Wind pump water
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Modern Energy Conversion Sequences

Heating of Buildings:
Gas, oil, biomass heat
Solar heat
Electricity Generation:
Coal, gas, nuclear heat mechanical electricity
Hydro

Hydro mechanical
mechanical electricity
electricity
Wind mechanical electricity
Solar Electricity
Transportation:
Oil gasoline, diesel, jet fuel heat mechanical
Biomass ethanol heat mechanical
Fuel cell cars: Gas hydrogen electricity mechanical

Hybrid cars: Gasoline mechanical electricity


battery electricity mechanical
5

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Energy Sources

Type of Energy

Examples

Potential Energy

Hydro

Kinetic Energy

Wind, Tidal

Thermal Energy

Geothermal, Ocean Thermal

Radiant Energy

Solar

Chemical Energy

Oil, Coal, Gas, Biomass

Nuclear Energy

Uranium, Thorium
6
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Sources

Energy Forms

Sources

Energy Sources and Conversion Processes


Biomass
fuels

Photosynthesis

Ocean
thermal

Solar C
lim
ate
Direct
thermal

Photovoltaics
Wind, hydro,
waves tidal

Chemical
Heat

Mechanical
work

Electricity

Nuclear

Fission &
fusion

Fossil fuels:
gas, oil coal

Geothermal

To end uses:
residential, industrial,
transportation

Fuel cells

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Scales of energy flows

cell phone
2W
laptop computer
10 W
human body (2000 Calorie diet)
100 W
1 horsepower
750 W
hair dryer
1,500 W
automobile
130,000 W
1 wind turbine
2,000,000 W (2 MW)
757 jet plane
5,000,000 W (5 MW)
Large power plant
1,000,000,000 W (1 GW)
Global energy use
15,000,000,000,000 W (15 TW)
Global heat accumulation 816,000,000,000,000 W (816 TW)
Global renewable energy flow
9E16 W (90,000 TW)

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Energy versus Power


Energy E ( in BTU, joules(J) or cal)
Power P = dE
dE//dt ( BTU/hr, Watts(W))
1 Watt = 1 Joule/Second

Heat Flows versus Work


Energy per time can be used to describe heat
flow and work but to distinguish between these
energy flows we use notation:
thermal t or th and electric e
MWth and MWe
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Order of Magnitude of Energy Resources

Source: World Energy Council

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

10

Energy Supply USA Sources

Source: ESno
erugrycIe
nf:oE
rm
inris
uail n
EinsetrrgaytiRoen
vi,eA
wn2n
00u7al
naetriognyAIdnmfo
mtraattiioonn, AAndnm

taie
navblie
ew
Ene2rg0y07Fall 2010 Conversion
EnergSyusR

11

Important Metrics

Energy Sources

Conversion Method

Specific Energy (MJ/kg)


Energy Density (MJ/L)
Phase
Impurities
Cost

Conversion Efficiency

Form of energy product

CO2 generation
Water usage
Land usage
Cost

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

12

Typical Specific Energy Values

Fuel

Higher Heating Value (MJ/kg)

Hydrogen

141.8

Methane

55.5

Gasoline

47.3

Diesel

44.8

Bituminous coal

31.0
31.0

Lignite

25.1

Douglas Fir Wood

20.4

Corn Stover

17.8

Bagasse

17.3

Wheat Straw

17.0

Animal Waste

13.4

Sewage Sludge

4.7
13

Channiwala, et al. 2002 and NIST Chemistry WebBook

Energy Content of Fuels


Energy content of fuel is characterized by the heat produced by burning

Dry Fuel

25C
Air

Complete
Combustion

Cool

Vapor: CO2,
N2, SO2

25C

Liquid: H2O

Higher Heating Value (HHV) or Gross Calorific Value


Dry Fuel

25C
Air

Complete
Combustion

Cool

Vapor: H2O,
CO2, N2, SO2

25C

Lower Heating Value (LHV) or Net Calorific Value 14


Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Key Metric: Conversion Efficiency

Energy Input

Conversion
Process

Useful Energy Output

Energy Loss

When producing work (mechanical or electricity):

= Work Output / Energy Input


When producing energy carriers (diesel, hydrogen):

= Energy Content of Product / Energy Input


Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

15

Sources

Energy Forms

Sources

Energy Sources and Conversion Processes


Biomass
fuels

Photosynthesis

Ocean
thermal

Solar C
lim
ate
Direct
thermal

Photovoltaics
Wind, hydro,
waves tidal

Chemical
Heat

Mechanical
work

Electricity

Nuclear

Fission &
fusion

Fossil fuels:
gas, oil coal

Geothermal

To end uses:
residential, industrial,
transportation

Fuel cells

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

16

Conversion Efficiencies
Conversion

Type

Efficiencies

Natural Gas Furnace

Chemical Heat

90-96%

Internal combustion engine Chemical Mechanical

15-25%

Power Plant Boilers

Chemical Heat

90-98%

Steam Turbines

Heat Mechanical

40-45%

Electricity Generator

Mechanical Electricity

98-99%

Gas Turbines

Chemical Mechanical

35-40%

Hydro

Grav. Potential Mechanical

60-90%

Geothermal

Thermal Mech Electricity 6-13%

Wind

Kinetic Mech Electricity

30-60%

Photovoltaic Cells

Radiation Electricity

10-15%

Ocean Thermal

Thermal Mech Electricity 1-3%

Source: Sustainable Energy

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

17

Overall Efficiency includes Steps Upstream

& Downstream of the Energy Conversion System

A linked or connected set of energy efficiencies from extraction to use:


n

Overall efficiency = overall = i


i=1

overall = gas extraction gas proces sin g gas transmission power plantelectricity transmissiondistributionmotor
Key Efficiencies include:
Fuel production
Fuel Transport
Transmission
Energy Storage

for example compressed air energy storage (CAES):

overall

Work output
Wturbine
=
= turbinecompressor
Work input Wcompressor
18
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Energy Conversion
 Laws of Thermodynamics provide limits
 Heat and work are not the same
They are both energy, but..
 cannot convert all heat to work
 Each conversion step reduces efficiency
 Maximum work output only occurs in idealized
reversible processes
 All real processes are irreversible
 Losses always occur to degrade the
efficiency of energy conversion and reduce
work/power producing potential
In other words You cant win or even
break even in the real world
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

19

Rate Processes in Energy Conversion


Heat Transfer
Mass Transfer
ec tions
ons
Chemica l Reac

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

20

Fluxes of heat, material, electrons must be driven

by gradients in free energy

dT
Fouriers law of heat conduction q = k
dx
dC
j = D
dx
2 D 2 dP

dP
Flow in pipe =
f Re dx

Ficks law of diffusion


Fluid mechanics

Ohms law of current flow

I
dV
=
A
dx

Consequence: the heat arrives at lower T, the mass arrives


at lower P, the electrons arrive at lower V, etc.: Losses
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

21

Heat Transfer
For heat to be transferred at an
appreciable rate, a temperature
difference ( T) is required.
Q=UAT

The non-zero  T guarantees


irreversibility
As  T does to zero, area and cost
goes to infinity

Image by Mbeychok on Wikimedia Commons.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

22

Heat exchangers

Many varieties of heat


exchangers used in energy
conversion
Heat recovery steam generators
(HRSG)
Air

Air-cooled
-cooled condensers
Shell-and-tube exchangers
Plate-fin exchangers
Cooling Tower

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

23

Humanitys Main Energy Source:

Chemical reactions

Virtually all fossil fuels and biofuels are converted to


useful energy via chemical reactions at a rate of ~13 TW
Energy released by conversion reactions can be converted
to mechanical energy or electricity
Some reactions are used to convert a primary energy
sources to more useful forms of chemically stored energy
Solid fossil fuels Liquid fuels
Natural Gas Hydrogen
Biomass Liquid fuels

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

24

Chemical Reactions
Chemical reactions either require or release heat.
CH4 + 2 O2 CO2 + 2 H2O

Hrxn = -890 kJ/mol

Exothermic reaction: one that gives off energy. Hrxn < 0.


Endothermic reaction: one that requires energy. Hrxn > 0.
Except in unusual situations (e.g. fuel cells, chemiluminescence)
essentially all of the Hrxn is released or supplied as heat.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

25

Examples of Energy Conversion Reactions

Fuel combustion
CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O natural gas
C8H12 + 11 O2 = 8 CO2 + 6 H2O gasoline
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 = 6 CO2 + 6 H2O cellulosic biomass

Hydrogen production
CH4 + H2O = CO + 3H2 steam reforming of methane
CO + H2O = CO2 + H2 water gas shift reaction

Hydrogen fuel cell


H2 + O2 = H2O + electricity + heat

N.B. These overall reactions occur through multiple steps

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

26

Gasification to Syngas

Fossil fuel
or biomass
Steam or oxygen

Syngas:

CO

H2

Gasifier
800C

Electricity,

CH4, H2,

Gasoline/diesel,

methanol

CH1.5O0.67 + 0.33 H2O CO + 1.08 H22

wood

steam

syngas
Hr = +101 kJ/mol
700-900C, 1 atm

Heat required to drive this


endothermic reaction
usually provided by partial
oxidation with O2
Image by Gerfriedc on Wikimedia Commons.

Source: National Renewable Energy Lab; F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland.

27

Water-gas-shift and methanation reactions


CO
H2

WGS
reactor

H2
CO2

H2O

Water gas shift


Hr = -41 kJ/mol
400-500C, 1 atm
Iron oxide catalyst

CO + H2O CO2 + H2

CO
H2

CH4
CO2
H2O

Methanation
reactor

Methanation

CO + 1.08 H2 0.52 CH4 + 0.48 CO2 + 0.04 H2O

Source: F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland;


& Cat Comm 4 215-221 (2003).

Hr = -127 kJ/mol
400C, 10-20 atm
Ni catalyst
28

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Fischer-Tropsch Reaction:
Syngas to Liquid Fuels
CO
H2

Ideal FT reaction:
(2n+1) H2 + n CO CnH2n+2 + n H2O

F-T
reactor

200-350C
Exothermic

Many simultaneous reactions


alcohols, alkenes, etc.
Alkanes (gasoline, diesel)
Alcohols

Applications:
Coal-to-liquids
Gas-to-liquids
Biomass-to-liquids

29
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

Rates of chemical reactions

Chemical reaction rates


are functions of the
concentration of
reacting species.
Forward and Backward
Reactions running
simultaneously: need a
free-energy difference
to drive in one
direction.

A+B C +D
Forward rate

rf = k f [A]n A [B]nB
Backward rate

rb = kb [C]nC [D]nD
Overall rate

r = k f [A]n A [B]nB kb [C]nC [D]nD


Rate definition

d[A]
d[B] d[C] d[D]
=
=
=
dt
dt
dt
dt

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

30

Reaction rates are strong

functions of temperature

Chemical reactions

generally accelerate
dramatically with
temperature

E
A
r k = Aexp

RT

ln k

Typical values of EA are


~200 kJ/mol.

Arrhenius plot
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

1/T
31

Catalysts
Catalysts accelerate
chemical reactions.
In mixtures with many
reactions possible,
catalysts can accelerate
desired reactions to
increase selectivity.
Catalysts dont change the
equilibrium.
Catalysts dont change
Hrxn.
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

32

Coal-to-Liquids Conversion
Coal
Electricity
Prep
Synthesis gas
production
N2

Air

O2
Air sep.
plant

FT
process

Product
recovery

Tail
gas

CO
H2

Gas
treatment
CO2

Wax

WGS

H2S

Liquid
fuels

Power
generation
Hydrogen
recovery

H2

Wax
hydrocracking
Liquid
fuels

Transportation
fuels

Mid-distillate
Diesel
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: PNNL.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

33

Coal-to-Liquids Conversion
Reaction Kinetics - Key to Performance
Coal
Electricity
Prep
Synthesis gas
production
N2
Air

O2
Air sep.
plant

FT
process

Product
recovery

Tail
gas

CO
H2

Gas
treatment
CO2

Wax

WGS

H2S

Liquid
fuels

Power
generation
Hydrogen
recovery

H2

Wax
hydrocracking
Liquid
fuels

Transportation
fuels

Mid-distillate
Diesel
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: PNNL.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

34

Coal-to-Liquids Conversion
Coal

Mass Transfer: Key to Reactions & Separations


Electricity

Prep
Synthesis gas
production
N2

Air

O2
Air sep.
plant

FT
process

Product
recovery

Tail
gas

CO
H2

Gas
treatment
CO2

Wax

WGS

H2S

Liquid
fuels

Power
generation
Hydrogen
recovery

H2

Wax
hydrocracking
Liquid
fuels

Transportation
fuels

Mid-distillate
Diesel
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: PNNL.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

35

Coal-to-Liquids Conversion
Heat Transfer

Coal

Size & Cost


Electricity

Prep
Synthesis gas
production
N2

Air

O2
Air sep.
plant

FT
process

Product
recovery

Tail
gas

CO
H2

Gas
treatment
CO2

Wax

WGS

H2S

Liquid
fuels

Power
generation
Hydrogen
recovery

H2

Wax
hydrocracking
Liquid
fuels

Transportation
fuels

Mid-distillate
Diesel
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: PNNL.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

36

Coal-to-Liquids Conversion
Coal

Thermodynamics set the limits

Prep

Synthesis gas
production
N2

Air

Electricity

O2
Air sep.
plant

FT
process

Product
recovery

Tail
gas

CO
H2

Gas
treatment
CO2

Wax

WGS

H2S

Liquid
fuels

Power
generation
Hydrogen
recovery

H2

Wax
hydrocracking
Liquid
fuels

Transportation
fuels

Mid-distillate
Diesel
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: PNNL.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

37

Common Conversion Efficiency

Challenges, Part 1

Thermo Limit on Conversion of heat to work:


Work < Heat (1- Tlow/Thigh)
Material (boiler, turbine) & emission (NOX) limits Thigh
Cooling

Cooling tower ((rate
rate of evaporation,
evaporation, LHV)
LHV) limit on Tlow

Difficult to precisely control chemical reactions


Common energy conversion strategy: just mix a fuel
with air, and let the reaction run to completion.
Then extract work from the hot exhaust gases.
Usually the conversion of chemical energy to heat is
irreversible: large increase in entropy.

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

38

Common Conversion Efficiency

Challenges, Part 2

Energy Resources Far From Users


Real security, global economy issues
Takes energy and money to move the resource or electricity to the users

Convenience, Reliability, Emissions Matter


Solid Fuels Difficult to handle (so we dont use coal for ships any more)
Coal only 1/10 the price of oil

Energy Density and Specific Energy Matters


Lots of land needed to collect diffuse resources like solar, wind, biomass, hydro
Transport costs and transport energy significant for low-energy-density fuels (e.g.
natural gas, hydrogen)

Power Density Matters


Energy conversion equipment is expensive, want to do a lot of conversion with
small equipment: Large Fluxes required, so Large Free Energy Gradients
For transportation, need to carry the energy conversion equipment with you!

Remember, each conversion reduces efficiency


and costs money.
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Conversion

39

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Sustainable Energy
1.818J/2.65J//3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

Part A: MIT IAP 2007 Two Week Course


Lis Drake, January 16, 2007

Energy Sustainability issues


What is sustainability?
How does energy use impact sustainability?
What are the problems with present energy
use?
What are global challenges for the future of
energy use?

What is Sustainability?

The ability of humanity to ensure that it meets the needs of the


present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs. [Bruntland, 1987]*
Preservation of productive capacity for the foreseeable future.
[Solow, 1992]
Biophysical sustainability means maintaining or improving the
integrity of the life support system of earth. [Fuwa, 1995]
A dynamic harmony between the equitable availability of
energy-intensive goods and services to all people and the
preservation of the earth for future generations [Tester, et al.
2005]

*Full references are given in: Tester et al., Sustainable Energy: Choosing
Among Options, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 2005

The Three Dimensions of Sustainabilty

Finance/
Economy

Trade-Offs
&
Equity/ Synergies
Ecology/

Social
Development

Environment

Derived from World Bank (1996)

How does energy use impact sustainability?


Some Benefits

Energy is critical to human survival and development


Fossil fuels are plentiful and convenient to use
Energy is key to industrialization and transportation
Energy facilitates economic growth and globalization

Some Problems
Rapid growth in fossil fuel use raises concerns about:
Security of supply (over-dependence?)
Environmental impacts
Societal conflicts over inequitable distribution of
resources
Depletion of critical resources

What are the problems with


present energy use?

Global Energy consumption is growing because:


Population is growing
Energy use per capita is growing especially in developing
countries
Growing megacities need concentrated energy sources
Transportation systems depend largely on petroleum fuels
Major fossil energy sources have problems
Security of supply/price stability (esp. petroleum)
Depletion
Climate impacts from greenhouse gas emissions
Energy access is unequally distributed
Global economy is significantly dependent on present fossil
energy prices and availability changes to include externality
costs may slow economic growth (or at least cause major shortterm disruptions in the economy)

Intragenerational Principles

Reduce gross inequities between the poorest and wealthiest


both nationally and globally
Meet the basic needs of the poorest with food, shelter, health care,
clean water, access to electricity, education, opportunity for work,
etc.
Avoid exploitation of poorer country/region resources and labor
to create even greater wealth for the richest

Provide ways to protect the common good (social,


environmental, economic) locally and globally through national
and international governance/cooperation
Preserve natural ecosystems against unconstrained development
Avoid interference with natural balances in the atmosphere, the
oceans, and the arctic regions
Maintain stable institutions that protect human rights, adjudicate
conflicts, and allow responsible trade and market economy
activities

Intergenerational Principles
What are our obligations to future generations?
Trustee: Every generation has an obligation to
protect the interests of future generations
Chain of obligation: Primary obligation is to
provide for the needs of the living and succeeding
generations. Near term concrete hazards have
priority over long term hypothetical hazards
Precautionary Principle: Do not pursue actions that
pose a realistic threat of irreversible harm or
catastrophic consequences unless there is some
compelling or countervailing need to benefit either
current or future generations

World Income Distribution in 1988 and 1993


(in millions of persons, bandwidth = 0.005) Milanovic, World Bank 2000*

and Concerns at Different Income Levels

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Curves from Milanovic, B. "True World Income Distribution, 1988 and 1993: First
Calculation Based Onhousehold Surveys Alone." World Bank, 2000. (PDF)

Are There Limits to Growth?

Malthus 1798* Population grows exponentially; food


production grows linearly. Population growth ceases when
incremental person doesnt have resources to survive
Hardin 1968 Tragedy of the Commons
Ehrlichs 1968 Overpopulation is the problem, depleting soils
and disrupting natural life support ecosystems
Forrester 1972 Limits to Growth potential for disaster
within 100 years
Meadows 1992 Beyond the Limits overshoot but human
ingenuity could prevent collapse
Cohen 1995 How many people can Earth support? (maybe a
trillion, more likely around 16 billion)

*Full references are given in: Tester et al., Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among
Options, The MIT Press Cambridge MA, 2005

Global Population Density Distribution


World Population
1650
550 million
1750 725 million
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1950 2.6 billion
1980 4.5 billion
2000 6.1 billion
------------------------

From NASA: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_detail.php?id=116

2006 Per Capita Average


Energy Use for Selected Countries
Tonnes of Oil Equivalent per person per year

TOE/person-year

9
8
7
6
5

7.8

8.2

5.1

World Average = 1.7 TOE/person-year


[1998 World Average = 1.4 TOE/per-yr]

5.6
5

4.4 4.1 4.2


3.9 3.7

4
3

2.6
1.6

2
1

1.1 1.1

0.7 0.5

0.14 0.16

0
USA
Japan
Brazil

Canada
Germany
China

Norway
U.K.
Egypt

From: Pocket World in Figures 2007, The Economist, London

Netherlands
Switzerland
India

Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Africa

Russia
Mexico
Bangladesh

World Commercial Primary Energy Use


Now and Projected (Edmonds, BAU)
Edmonds, 2095,
30+ bTOE?

BP data, 1999,
8.5 bTOE

USA

W. Eur.

M.E.+Afr.

USA

W. Eur.

M.E.+Afr.

Japan

Other Amer.

E. Eur + FSU

Austral + Asia

Other Amer.
Austral + Asia

E. Eur + FSU

China

Japan
China

From: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2000 and Edmonds, J., Energy Policy, 23:4-5, 1995

Energy Use by Sector


Typical Wealthy Country

25% primary energy to electricity


1/3 to transportation
1/3 to industry
1/3 to buildings (about half the electricity)

Poorer Countries
Buildings and industries (rural) predominate, but industry
and transportation grow with development

Worldwide
18% primary energy to electricity

Percentage shares of world population, world


GDP, and world commercial energy consumption
for selected countries.
% of World
Population
2006

% of World
GDP 2006

% of World Energy
Consumption 2006

United States

4.6%

28.4%

22%

Japan

2.0%

11.2%

5%

France

0.9%

5.0%

3%

Germany

1.3%

6.6%

3.3%

United Kingdom

0.9%

5.1%

2.2%

China

20.6%

4.7%

13.4%

India

17%

1.7%

5.2%

Country

Climate Change Concerns

Global energy demand is growing and is over 80% of primary


energy is supplied by fossil fuel today
Combustion of fossil fuel generates greenhouse gases
predominately CO2 that can lead to global warming and
associated impacts (melting of glaciers and polar ice, sea level
rise, changes in local rainfall and climates, increases in storm
severity, impacts on biosphere and agriculture, changes in ocean
circulation, etc.)
Methane, CH4, is also a GHG and reaches the atmosphere
through agricultural activities and leakage
There is no silver bullet replacement for fossil fuels

10oF

[sample forecasts of future temperature change]

5oF

Adapted from MIT Joint Program


estimates of range of credible scenarios

0oF

Average Global Temp. change from 1990

The Greenhouse Gamble

Noise band
2000

2020

2040
Year

2060

2080

2100

Other Energy Sources all have pros and cons

Nuclear: can provide concentrated power, but there are


concerns about waste management and proliferation
Solar-based Renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biomass):
require large land areas for collection because of the lower
energy intensity of sunlight
Geothermal: Deep access is needed in most areas to reach
high enough temperatures for efficient power production
Fossil with carbon capture and sequestration: energy penalty
for processing and concerns about long-term CO2 storage
integrity

Energy Sources

Energy Sources, Conversions and Use


Biomass
Fuels

Photovoltaics

Energy Forms

Solar
Thermal

Wind, Hydro,
Waves, Tidal

Electrochemical
Chemical
Heat

Mechanical
Work

Electricity

Energy Sources

Nuclear

Fossil Fuels

Nuclear
Fuels

Geothermal

Image of sun by MIT OpenCourseWare.

To End Uses:
Residential
Industrial
Transportation

Trends and Issues

Population growth still increasing though slowing. Some


OECD countries may actually see a populations decline without
immigration
Increasing electrification in all sectors except transportation
which remains oil dependent
Existing energy technology infrastructure is in place; this is a
barrier to competition from new sources
Growing concerns about externalities:
Global climate change
Economic and societal instabilities
Resource depletion
Land impacts
Worldwide dependence on low cost fossil fuels makes it difficult
to raise prices over a short time span could change trade
patterns significantly
Chinas rapid growth and motorization are creating growing
demands for new petroleum production and refining

Economic Impacts and Costs

From: UK Economic Service Assessment:


Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change
(October 2006)
Costs associated with unabated climate change are estimated
to be at least 5% of GDP/year
Other impacts such as economic effects on human life and the
environment and differential impacts on the poor could raise
estimates to 20% of GDP per year or more.
Each tonne of CO2 emitted now causes damage worth at least
$85
Many emissions reduction opportunities cost less than
$25/TCO2
Tackling climate change soon is a long term growth path the
status quo will ultimately undermine economic growth

Policy Changes for Effective Response


From: UK Economic Service Assessment:
Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (October
2006)
Progress will require:
Carbon pricing (taxation, emission trading, regulation) to build a
common global carbon price that includes full social costs of use
Technology policy to drive the development and large-scale
deployment at scale of low-carbon and high-efficiency products
Policies that remove barriers to energy efficiency and inform,
educate, and persuade individuals about what they can do to
facilitate the transition
Need consistent global policy, guided by understanding of long-term
goals, with strong frameworks for international cooperation.

The Energy Challenge


If we have to change our energy technologies over
a relatively short period of time, where are the best
alternatives?
How should we invest in developing better
alternatives?
What are the drivers that will encourage timely
development and market penetration of these
technologies?
Do we also have to change behaviors?

Thring's Sufficiency Concept


(slightly modified)
Too little
(survival?)
Lower limit

Quality of life

Upper
limit

Sufficient
(balance)
Excess
(obsession?)

Consumption or Level of Activity

Applies to:
food?
money?
cars? TVs? etc.?
work?
sleep?
friends?
and more!

Some Barriers

Most people dont like change unless it will improve their life
now
Changing energy sources will entail additional costs, will upset
present economic balances, will create winners and losers, and
may slow economic growth in the short term
Most people have a preference for short over long term gain,
especially if the long term gain is intangible
We have trouble assessing the value of externalities and the
value may not be uniform among nations or regions
Moving to more expensive energy sources will force us to use less
energy and perhaps to forgo some habits we have come to like
(e.g., SUVs in the US) and will differentially impact the poor
Our leaders are reluctant to do anything that may hurt major
industries or the economy unless there is a compelling reason to
do so
Most Americans are unaware of the rapid industrialization and
growth of China - and its competition in global markets for
petroleum and other resources

Mitigating Climate Change:


Progress - How Far and How Fast?
Gaming Wait for the other guy:
Developed countries go first; Kyoto modest start
Each country wishes to preserve or improve
economic status
US administration backed away from the Kyoto
Protocol and looks to a variety of voluntary
initiatives
Result INACTION!
BUT: Evidence of climate change is increasing and
public awareness is rising, even in the US

Addressing Poverty:
How Far and How Fast?

Gaps between rich and poor still widening


Cultural and religious values influence attitudes
Energy/electricity access help improve life of the poorest
Selfishness and denial
Developed world (especially the U.S.) view that poverty is
self-inflicted, limited social services aimed at reacting to
problems rather than to correcting them, unwillingness to
share enough domestically, much less internationally
Developing countries desire for better quality of life among
both the richer and the poorer, graft and corruption,
acceptance of large inequities, inadequate resources (human
and financial) for much change, anger at the haves who
are even more visible now thanks to modern communications

Consequences of Inaction

Climate change
Shifting regional weather patterns impacting ecosystems,
agriculture, water, storms, floods, etc.
Impacts of warming about double the average at the poles
Most human impact on the poor wealthy countries can
better afford mitigation
Poverty
Subhuman living conditions for many; ill-health, addiction,
crime, mass migration, etc.
Loss of human capital and environmental degradation
Major societal inequities
Economic conflicts and disruptions
Institutional instabilities
Fortress World for the rich? Terrorism? Wars?

Some considerations
There is no right or wrong it is a matter of balance
Each one may contribute in a different way
Selfishness and materialism are OK in moderation,
but may block other rewarding human values like
being of service to others, feeling part of a
community, self respect, love, and compassion
We can only control our behavior not other
peoples (though it is possible to be an example)

Rewards of Action
Perhaps a better quality of life with enough to meet
our needs not our wants!
A different business paradigm not mass
production, but life cycle service production with
careful regard for externalities
Greatly reduced social inequity and improved
societal stability
Appreciation and care for nature and diversity, both
human and environmental
A balance between self-care and the good feeling
from giving our share as part of a healthy
community and world

What can we do?


In our daily living?
In choosing careers?
In our professional lives?
As private citizens?
As national citizens?
As global citizens?
How much are we willing to do?

Some references
US DOE Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/

BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2005.


http://www.bp.com/statisticalreview [links to latest year version]

IEA World Energy Statistics 2006.


http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/index.asp

Sir Nicholas Stern, Review Report on the Economics of


Climate Change (October 2006) http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_c
hange/stern_review_report.cfm

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Recitation: Discussion of Sustainability Issues


Dr. John C. Wright

MIT - PSFC

21 SEP 2010

Introduction

Outline

O UTLINE

The Three Dimensions of Sustainabilty

Another denition of
sustainability - not running out
of things. e.g. land

Finance/
Economy

Energy footprint
Environmental footprint
Ecological footprint
Carbon footprint
2
3

Trade-Offs

&

Equity/ Synergies

Ecology/

Social
Development

Drivers of Change

Environment

Derived from the World Bank (1996)


Derived from World Bank (1996)

Opportunities and Barriers;


timing issues

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

W E ARE NOT IN STEADY STATE


Population and standards of living.
1990 data. Pop 5,278,639,789 (1990)
1

Africa

Asia

Europe

North America

South America

Oceania

HDI

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
0

0.5

1
1.5
kWh/percapita

2
104
Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

W E ARE NOT IN STEADY STATE


Population and standards of living are increasing.
2005 data. Pop 6,486,882,848 (2005)
1

Africa

Asia

Europe

North America

South America

Oceania

HDI

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
0

0.5

1
1.5
kWh/percapita

2
104

Along the way, we need to make informed choices.

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

H OW DO HUMANS IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT ?


Need to include direct consumption and also externalities in the
supply chain - life cycle analysis.
Resource depletion (water, energy, food, manufactured materials,
fertile land, habitats, etc.)
Waste product pollution
Interference in environmental balances.

Need a metric to apply across technologies and consumption.


How do I compare an egg to a light bulb?
Energy used - convert all energy requirements into a common unit
like TOE (tonnes of oil equivalent). Need to convert all usage to
primary energy (e.g., including the inefciency of electricity
production from primary energy).
CO2 emitted - Here the energy footprint is weighted for the carbon
intensity of the primary energy sources. (may not even be zero for
nuclear or renewables)
Land area used - a computation of land needed to collect water, to
grow food, to produce various resources, to convert fossil energy
to land to produce equivalent biomass energy, etc. for our
individual use.
4

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

C ARBON EMISSION FACTORS FROM ENERGY USE

The Kaya equation relates CO2 emissions to other quality factors:


CO2 = Pop Standard of living Energy Intensity Carbon intensity
Pop represents global population
Standard of living is in GDP/pop
Energy intensity is energy used to produce in BTU/GDP
Carbon intensity is efciency of fuel and how much CO2 emitted
in CO2 /BTU

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

K AYA DATA

Average Annual Percent Change 1980-1999


Population

Standard
of Living

Energy
Intensity

Carbon
Intensity

Carbon
Emissions

Africa

2.54%

- 0.58%

0.82%

- 0.01%

2.77%

Australia

1.36%

1.98%

- 0.37%

0.00%

2.98%

Brazil

1.61%

0.76%

1.83%

- 0.80%

3.43%

China

1.37%

8.54%

- 5.22%

- 0.26%

4.00%

East Asia

1.78%

5.00%

0.92%

- 0.70%

7.10%

E. Europe

0.44%

- 1.91%

- 0.14%

- 0.61%

- 2.21%

India

2.04%

3.54%

0.27%

0.03%

5.97%

Japan

0.41%

2.62%

- 0.57%

- 0.96%

1.47%

Middle East

2.98%

0.04%

2.45%

- 1.14%

4.34%

OECD

0.68%

1.73%

- 0.88%

- 0.58%

0.94%

OECD-Eur.

0.53%

1.74%

- 1.00%

- 1.06%

0.18%

United States

0.96%

2.15%

- 1.64%

- 0.21%

1.23%

World

1.60%

1.28%

- 1.12%

- 0.45%

1.30%

Region

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

W HY DOES ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT MATTER

Footprints are about measuring how much of a nite resource you are
using.
Carrying capacity of earth?
Sustainable economies, societal institutions, and the environment
Ecological footprints for modest European lifestyle are 2.6 hectares
or about 6.5 acres per person
US average = 24 acres per person (8.8 hectares)
UK average = 5.3 hectares per person (13.3 acres)

Above modest European lifestyle applied to China suggests it


could support a sustainable population of 333 million! [Optimum
Population Trust, UK, 1993]
Area of US is similar to China - so US can support its population
at European lifestyle levels! - but we are ~3 that level.

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

D ISCUSSION

How much does our location globally have to do with our


footprint?
Solutions? Equity?
Consequences?

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Motivation

E NERGY F OOTPRINT

Land used to generate energy


Land needed to absorb CO2 emissions from energy generation
Energy used in an activity or production of an item

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Case Studies

S OLAR , HOW DO WE GET FROM 1300 W/ M2 TO 4?

Solar insolation is 1300 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. =>


1GW plant needs 877 m 877 m
Clear air attenuates to 1000 W/m2 => 1000 m squared
Only half the Earth is illuminated 500 W/m2 => 1400 m squared
The sun rises and sets sin = 12 250 W/m2 => 2000 m sq
Cloud cover can cost 25%-50%

, but well be generous and as

sume we use deserts.

Efciency of solar cells. Take 20%. 50 W/m2 => 4472 m squared


Packing efciency. Solar plants typi
cally only cover 25% with cells or mir
rors. e.g. Solarpark Lieberose has 50
ha of cell area on 163 ha of land used
by the plant (300 ha overall leased). 25
W/m2 => 9000 m squared
10

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Case Studies

E COLOGICAL FOOTPRINT

See http://www.earthday.net/footprint
What is your footprint?
My own footprint is not great:

Food
Mobility
Shelter
Goods
Services
Total

3.0 acres

7.0 acres

3.2 acres

3.0 acres

8.7 acres

24.9 acres (about US average)

Worldwide there are 4.5 biologically productive acres per person.


Is there enough to go around?

11

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Case Studies

S HOULD I FLY, TAKE THE TRAIN , OR DRIVE TO


P RINCETON ?
They all take 6 hours. They all cost the same $ (at least for one
person). Its 600 miles round trip.
Flying
A full Boeing 747-400 with

240 000 liters of fuel and 416

passengers can travel 8 800

miles (14 200 km)

Jet fuel has 10 kWh/liter of

heat energy.

2240000liter
416passengers

10kWh/liter

12000kWh per passenger

Pro rate this for my trip:

300/8800 400kWh

12

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Case Studies

S HOULD I FLY, TAKE THE TRAIN , OR DRIVE TO


P RINCETON ?

They all take 6 hours. They all cost the same $ (at least for one
person). Its 600 miles round trip.
The train
A regional train uses 5-15

kWh per 100 seat-mi

Take the middle range and

assume the train is full

6 10 kWh per 100 seat-mi

= 600 kWh

12

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Case Studies

S HOULD I FLY, TAKE THE TRAIN , OR DRIVE TO


P RINCETON ?
They all take 6 hours. They all cost the same $ (at least for one
person). Its 600 miles round trip.
Driving
A single passenger in a

non-hybrid getting 30

mi/gallon.

Gasoline has about 44 kWh

per gallon.

600mi
30mi per gallon

880kWh

44kWh/gallon

12

Sustainability Recitation

Footprints

Case Studies

D ISCUSSION

It is said the Gobi desert could supply the worlds power if


covered in photovoltaic cells. Is this true? The Gobi desert is
approximately 1 280 000 square kilometers. What about snow?
Practical issues?
How much can we reasonably reduce our footprints?
When you are a working professional, do you hope to have a
larger footprint? Do you care?
What other choices did I have for short trips? What other

considerations?

13

Sustainability Recitation

Drivers of Change

D RIVERS OF C HANGE - FOR DISCUSSION


Technological innovation

Will it enable painless transition to sustainable lifestyles. eg


Firelight -> Lightbulb -> CFL -> LED
What are you willing to give up? Does life style = quality of life?

Substitution of alternatives

Zipcar, hybrids, public transport

Desktop(300W) -> laptop(60W) -> Smartphone (5W)

Policy and regulatory requirements. Is regulation the way to go?

What about personal freedoms? Will the market decide/respond?

Recycling, incandescent bulbs (2012 efciency standards 14->45

lumens/W)

Related closely to adoption and development of technologies.

Refrigerators as a historical example resisted by industry.

Changes in peoples preferences. Social pressure. What have

you observed compared to say 20 yrs ago? greening of

industries? Why?

14

Sustainability Recitation

Drivers of Change

O PPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS ; TIMING

Technologies
Market barriers - costs. Maybe subsidies are required? eg solar
and wind.
Inertia - infrastructure investment payout, consumer preferences

Policy - Stimulus fund, cash-for-clunkers, grid and other


infrastructure upgrades. Creating jobs, but opportunity to adopt
new more efcient infrastructure.

15

Sustainability Recitation

Drivers of Change

S OME RESOURCES

Sustainable Energy; Tester et al.


Sustainable Energy, Without the hot air; MacKay at

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Earthday footprint analysis at http://www.earthday.net/footprint


Carbonfund Carbon footprint calculator at

http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/calculator/

16

Sustainability Recitation

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay


Nuclear Engineering Dept.

RESOURCE EVALUATION
AND DEP
EPLETI
LETION
ON ANALY
LYSES
SES

WAYS OF ESTIMATING ENERGY


RESOURCES

Monte Carlo
Hubbert Method Extrapolation
Expert Opinion (Delphi)

FACTORS AFFECTING
RESOURCE RECOVERY

Nature of Deposit
Fuel Price
Technological Innovation

Deep drilling
Sideways drilling
Oil and gas field
pressurization
Hydrofracturing
Large scale mechanization
3

URANIUM AREAS OF THE U.S.

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

MAJOR SOURCES OF

URANIUM

Class 1 Sandstone Deposits


New Mexico
Wyoming
Utah
Colorado
Texas
Other

Share
.49
.36
.03
.03
.06
.03

U3O8 Concentration
(Percent)
0.25
0.20
0.32
0.28
0.28
0.28

Class 2 Vein Deposits

Tons U3O8
Total
315,000
$10/lb

7,100
7
,100

Class 3 Lignite Deposits

0.01-0.05

Class 4 Phosphate Rock

0.015

Class 5 Phosphate Rock Leached


Zone (Fla.)

0.010

54,600

Class 6 Chattanooga Shale

0.006

2,557,300

Class 7 Copper Leach Solution


Operations

0.0012

30,000

Class 8 Conway Granite


Class 9 Sea Water

1,200

0.0012-Uranium
0.0050-Thorium

1x106
4x106

0.33x10-6

4x109

ESTIMATES OF URANIUM AVAILABILITY FROM


GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS AND OCEANS IN
THE U.S.
4000

Millions of Tons U3O8

1800

200
8

4
S 30
2
S 10
0
Conventional
700-2100 ppm

Shale

Shale

Granite

Shale

Granite

Seawater

60-80 ppm

25-60 ppm

10-20 ppm

10-25 ppm

4-10 ppm

0.003 ppm

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

DECLINE IN GRADE OF MINED


COPPER ORES SINCE 1925

% Copper in ORE

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

RECOVERY BY IN-SITU
COMBUSTION

MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION


Yield from
Region Y
n

Y = Yj
j=1

(Eq. 1)

Yield from
Zone 1, y1

Yield from
Zone 2, y3

Yield from
Zone n, yn

y1

y2

yn

Probability density functions are obtained subjectively, using information


about deposit characteristics, fuel price, and technology used.
9

MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION OF THE


PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION OF A
FUNCTION OF A SET OF RANDOM VARIABLES, AS
G = G(Z), where

(Eq. 1)

Z = y1, y 2 , K , y n , and
Yi is a random variable (i = 1,n)
Note that Z and G are also random variables.

10

MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION OF


PROBABILITY DENSITY AND CUMULATIVE
DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS
1

Area = 1

dyi

yimin

yi

Prob. (y i < Yi < y i + y i ) = fYi (y i )dy i

yimax

yimin

yimax

yi

( )=

(Eq. 2) Prob. Y < y = F y


i
i
Y
i

yi

yi

Consider Yi to be a random variable within y i min , y i max

min

( )

fY yi dyi
i

(Eq. 3)

]
11

MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION,


Continued
Note: FYi (y i ) is uniformly distributed within [0, 1]

12

MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION,


Continued
1. Utilize a random number generator to select a value of F(yi)
within range [0, 1] corresponding value of yi (Eq. 3).
2. Repeat step 1 for all values of i and utilize selected values of
Z1 = y1 , y 2 , L , y n to calculate a value of Z (Eq. 1)
1
1
1
1
,
(note Z is also a random variable).
3. For the k-th set of selected values of Z K = y1 , y 2 , L , y n one

can obtain the corresponding value of G K = G K Z K


4. Repeat step 2 many times and obtain
a set of values of vector Z , and
corresponding value of Gk.
5. Their abundance distributions
will approximate those of the
.
pdfs of the variables
and
Z
G Z as
one

13

M. KING HUBBERTS MINERAL


RESOURCE ESTIMATION METHOD
ASSUMED CHARACTERISTICS OF MINERAL RESOURCE
EXTRACTION

As More Resource Is Extracted The Grade Of The Marginally


Most Attractive Resources Decreases, Causing

Need for improved


improved extraction technologies
technologies

Search for alternative deposits, minerals

Price increases (actually, rarely observed)

14

M. KING HUBBERTS MINERAL

RESOURCE ESTIMATION METHOD,

Continued

POSTULATED PHASES OF MINERAL RESOURCE


EXTRACTION

Early: Low Demand, Low Production Costs, Low Innovation


Growing: Increasing Demand And Discovering Rate, Production

Growing With Demand, Start of Innovation


Innovation

Mature: Decreasing Demand And Discovery Rate, Production


Struggling To Meet Demand, Shift To Alternatives
Late: Low Demand, Production Difficulties, Strong Shift To
Alternatives (rarely observed)

15

U.S. Natural Gas Reserves


Trillions of cubic feet

320
300

Proved Reserves

320
300

280

280

260

260

240

240

220

220

200

200

180

180

160
40

160

(As of Dec. 31)

35
30
25
20
15

40
35
30
25
20
15

Additions

10
5
0
5

10
5
0
5

10
15
20
25

10
15
20
25

Production
1947

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

AGA committee on natural gas reserves


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from the American Gas Association.

16

U.S. NATURAL GAS


PRODUCTION

Comparison of estimated (Hubbert) production curve and actual production (solid line).
17

Courtesy of U.S. DOE.

U.S. CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION

Comparison of estimated (Hubbert) production curve and actual production (solid line).
18

Courtesy of U.S. DOE.

COMPLETE CYCLE OF WORLD

CRUDE-OIL PRODUCTION

(ca. 10% of total resources)

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

19

RESOURCE BEHAVIOR UNDER


HUBBERT ASSUMPTIONS

Timing:
td, tr, tp are times of
respective maxima of
Qd, Qr, Qp.

20

LOGISTIC FUNCTION
Hubberts assumed logistical relationships
Rate of Production

Q P (X)
d [Q P (X)]
P =
Q
= rQ P (X)1
,
dt
K

Cumulative Production
KQ Po (X)
Q P (X) =
Q P o (X) (Q Po (X) K )erX

r
4

Q P (X)
K

Q P (X)
1
K
2

where r = relative rate of change


K = carrying capacity or
ultimate production value
Q Po Q P (X = 0)

QP(X) = cumulative production at time, (t - to) = X


21

LOGISTIC FUNCTION,
continued
Q P () = 0

Q P (0) =

dQ P (X)

Q(x)
dt

K
Q P (X)
2

max

K
= Q PO
2

dQ P (X)
=
dX

P () = K

=
X=
X
=0

X 2
1 2
d X, where
e

rK
.
4

81
.
=
r

Let : t - t o X.
22

EQUATIONS
Conservation of Resource:
Qd (t ) = Q r (t ) + Q p (t )

(Eq. 4)

Rate Conservation:
(t ) = Q
(t ) + Q
(t )
Q
d
r
p

(Eq. 5)

Approximate Results:
= 0) t(Q
= 0) = 2
t (Q
d
r
t t
r p
t d t r
or
1
t r td + t p
2
Qp
2Qd t d

ultimate

()

(Eq. 6)
(Eq. 7)
(Eq. 8)
(Eq. 9)
23

EQUATIONS, Continued
d (t ) and Q
p (t)
If we assume Gaussian distributions for Qr (t ), Q
with each having the same standard deviation, , obtain
Qr
1 t t 2
o
r
Q r (t ) =
exp

(Eq. 10)
2

Qd
1 t t 2
o
d
(t ) =
(Eq. 11)
(Eq.
Q
exp


d
2

,
1 t t 2
Qp
p
o
(t ) =

(Eq. 12)
Q
exp

p
2
2

=0
Then, when Qr is at a maximum t = tr and Q
r
1xQ r
1xQ r t r
o
2

Qr t r =
=
(Eq. 13)
2

,
or

Qr t r

()

()
()

24

EQUATIONS, Continued
For the normal distribution

1 1 z2
e 2
2

f (z) =

t to
f (1) = 0.67, z
=1

25 yr. for U.S. petroleum and natural gas

F(z) =

f (z )dz, Cumulative distribution function

F(3) = 0.99, Approximately the state of full depletion


Time of exploitation = 150 yrs
6
End date of major U.S. oil, natural gas production
= 1900 + 150 = 2050
25

SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITY
STUDY STATE OF NEW MEXICO

26

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

NEW MEXICO SUBJECTIVE


PROBABILITY STUDY (AFTER DELPHI)

27

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Energy Transmission and Storage

Sustainable Energy
9/23/2010
text readings in Chapter 16
Sections 16.1-16.3, 16.6-16.7

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Sustainable Energy Chapter 16


Storage, Transportation, and Distribution of Energy
16.1 Overview of Energy Supply Infrastructure Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648
16.2 Connected Efficiencies and Energy Chains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
651
16.3 Modes of Energy Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
653
16.3.1 General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
653
16.3.2 Energy storage technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
658
16.4 Energy Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 670
16.4.1 General characteristics of energy transmission systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670
16.4.2 Oil transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 671
16.4.3 Natural gas transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
674
16.4.4 Coal transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
675
16.4.5 Electric power transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
676
16.5 Energy Distribution Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
678
16.5.1 General characteristics of central versus distributed systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678
16.5.2 Combined heat and power opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
681
16.5.3 Applications to renewable energy systems and hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
683
16.6 Sustainability Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
683
16.6.1 Improved resource utilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
683
16.6.2 Environmental, safety, and health concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
683
16.6.3 Economic and operational attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
684
16.7 Opportunities for Advancement of Sustainable Energy Infrastructures . . . . . . . .684
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
Web Sites of Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
688
Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
688
2

Energy Storage outline of topics

Why do we need storage?


Demand and scale requirements
Technology options
Performance factors and metrics
Economic considerations and status
Storage for Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Environmental and sustainability issues

4
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Sources

Energy Forms

Sources

Energy Sources and Conversion Processes


Biomass
fuels

Photosynthesis

Ocean
thermal

Solar C
lim
ate
Direct
thermal

Photovoltaics
Wind, hydro,
waves tidal

Chemical
Heat

Mechanical
work

Electricity

Nuclear

Fission &
fusion

Fossil fuels:
gas, oil coal

Geothermal

To end uses:
residential, industrial,
transportation

Fuel cells

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Motivation for storage


Variations in Energy Demand
Variations in Energy Supply
Interruptions in Energy Supply

Transmission Congestion
Demand for Portable Energy
Efficiency of Energy Systems
Energy Recovery
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Variations in Energy Demand


45
40
35

GW

30
25

20

Wed

Thurs

Fri

Sat

Sun

15
10
5

Mon

Tues

Diurnal
variations
for UK
electricity
demand in
the last
week of
August 2010

Source: NationalGrid
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Options to Manage Supply & Demand


Excess capacity plus dispatch system
Demand management
Energy storage

8
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Variations in Energy Demand


Total USA
Generating
Capacity

1050
900
750

Peak hour
Demand for
Each month
of 2008

600

GW
450
300

Annual
Average
Demand

150
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Jul

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Source: EIA 2008

9
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Variations in Energy Supply


Example: Nevada Solar One hourly net electricity output

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see slide 36 in Cohen, Gilbert.
"Solargenix Energy: The Natural Power for Good." Las Vegas, NV: IEEE, May 16, 2006.

10
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Interruptions in Energy Supply


Cost to USA from poor power quality $119 to $188
billion/year (EPRI)
Global market for Uninterruptable Power Supply,
UPS systems, is $7 billion/year

Baxter, Richard. Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide. Tulsa, OK: PennWell, 2006. ISBN: 9781593700270.

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

11

Motivation for storage


Variations in Energy Demand
Variations in Energy Supply
Interruptions in Energy Supply

Transmission Congestion
Demand for Portable Energy
Efficiency of Energy Systems
Energy Recovery
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

12

Reality Today
Not much energy storage in US electricity supply system
Pumped storage is only 2% of entire generating capacity

USA system uses excess capacity and dispatch to meet


demand
Installed capacity is more than twice the average demand

Lack of storage impedes large-scale deployment of


intermittent sources
Requires redundancy by conventional power plants

13
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Storage demand requirements


a multiscale challenge
Electric power
for grid 10 to 1000 MW hrs on diurnal and seasonal cycles
for non-grid distributed power 10 W to 100 MW
battery back up for PV solar and wind, hybrid vehicles
farm pumping and other remote applications
low-head hydro storage
UPS systems kW to MW for seconds to hours
Thermal energy applications kW to MW
heating and cooling in buildings
passive solar residential
active systems hot water and ice storage
industrial process heating 100 kWh to 100 MWh
14
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Storage technology options and modes


Potential energy (pumped hydro, compressed air, springs)
Kinetic energy (mechanical flywheels)
Thermal energy without phase change
passive (adobe) and active (water)
Thermal energy with phase change (ice, molten salts, steam)
Chemical energy (hydrogen, methane, gasoline, coal, oil)
Electrochemical energy (batteries, flow cells)
Electrostatic energy (capacitors)
Electromagnetic energy (superconducting magnets)

15
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Pumped Hydro is the conventional large-scale storage option.


More than 20 GW capacity in USA today.

Pumped Storage
Advantages:
Low Cost
Scale
Disadvantages:
Siting
Large footprint

16
Sustainable Energytorag
Images from TVA and Adrian Pingstone on Wikimedia Commons.

Compressed Air electricity


storage starting to be deployed at
10+ MW scale

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

17

Electric energy storage at kW scale: Lead-Acid Batteries

Heavy
Du
Batter ty
y

ePb

e-

Load
Pb2+ + 2 e-

Carbon

PbO2

H+

Binder

Acid
Current
collector

Pb metal

SO42-

_
Anode

Current
collector

Pb2+

Electrolyte

Pb4+ + 2 e-

Pb2+

Cathode

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Donald Sadoway.

18
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Flywheel Technology:
High Power Density but Low Specific Energy

Image of POWERTHRU Flywheel removed due to copyright restrictions.

19

Pentadyne GTX Flywheel


Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Supercapacitor:
High Power Density but Low Specific Energy

Current Collecting Plate


Active Electrode
Separator
Active Electrode
Current Collecting Plate
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Opportunities:
Increased effective area
Enhanced dielectric materials

20
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES):


High Power Density but very expensive

Diagram of American Superconductor's D-SMES system removed due to copyright restrictions.

Advantages:
Very high efficiency 95%
Disadvantages:
Very high Costs
21

American Superconductor
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Performance factors for energy storage systems

energy capture rate and efficiency


discharge rate and efficiency
dispatchability and load following characteristics
scale flexibility
durability cycle lifetime
mass and volume requirements footprint of both weight and
volume
safety risks of fire, explosion, toxicity
ease of materials recycling and recovery

22
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Performance factors for energy storage systems

energy capture rate and efficiency


discharge rate and efficiency
dispatchability and load following characteristics
scale flexibility
durability cycle lifetime
mass and volume requirements footprint of both weight and
volume

Energy and power density are both important!!


23
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Comparing Storage Technologies Ragone Plot

Omitted from chart:


Low Energy-Density
Storage for Large
Stationary
Applications:
Hydro, Flow Batteries,
Compressed Air

24
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Energy storage in general


Primary
Energy
Type

Characteristic
Energy Density
kJ/kg

Application
Sector

Pumped
Hydropower

Potential

1 (100m head)

Electric

Compressed Air
Energy Storage

Potential

15,000 in kJ/m3

Electric

Kinetic
Kinchi

30-360

Transport

Enthalpy
(sensible +
latent)

Water (100-40oC) 250


Rock (250-50oC) 180
Salt (latent) 300

Buildings

Fossil Fuels

Reaction
Enthalpy

Oil 42,000
Coal 32,000

Transport, Electric,
Industrial,
Buildings

Biomass

Reaction
Enthalpy

Drywood 15,000

Transport, Electric,
Industrial, Building

Batteries

Electrochemical

Lead acid 60-180


Nickel Metal hydride
370
Li-ion 400-600
Li-pdgmer ~ 1,400

Mode

Flywheels
Thermal

Superconducting
Magnetic Energy Electromagnetic
Storage (SMES)
Supercapacitors

Electrostatic

Transport,
Buildings

100 10,000

Electric

18 36

Transport

25

Energy Storage Technology Characteristics

Pumped
Hydro
1.8 X 106
36 X 10 6 MJ
1001000
MWe
6480%

CAES (a)

Flywheels

Thermal

Batteries

Supercapacitors

SMES(b)

180,000
18 X 10 6 MJ
100100
MWe
6070%

118,000 MJ

1800
180,000 MJ
0.1 to 10
MWe
~75%

110 MJ
0.1-10 MWe

~90%

1100
MJ
0.1 to 10
MWe
~8090%

1800
5.4 X 106 MJ
101000
MWe
~95%

Hours

Hours

Minutes

Hours

Hours

Seconds

>10,000
Moderate

?2,000
Small

>100,000
Small

N/A

Easy

N/A

N/A

Unknown

Maturity

Mature

?10,000
Moderate if
under
ground
Difficult to
moderate
Early stage
of
development

?10,000
Small

Siting Ease

?10,000
Large if
above
ground
Difficult

Minutes to
Hours
?10,000
Large

Under
development

Mature

Lead acid
mature,
others under
development

Available

Early R&D
stage,
under
development

Energy Range
Power Range
Overall Cycle
Efficiency
Charge/Discharge

110 MWe

~90%

Time

Cycle Life
Footprint/Unit
Size

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 Storage

26

Energy storage costs and status

Capital versus operating costs


Current commercial systems
pumped hydro (widely deployed: more than 20 GWe USA capacity)
thermal energy storage (water, ice, passive systems common)
chemical energy storage (natural gas, petroleum, solid fuels)
batteries 1 W to 100 kW scale now common for lead acid
future systems near term
flywheels
supercapacitors
compressed air
Improved batteries Li-ion polymer
future systems long term
hydrogen storage for vehicles and distributed power
SMES
Advanced batteries and fuel cells
27
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Cost projections for energy storage systems


System

Typical Size
Range MWe

$/kWe

$/kWh

Pumped hydropower

100-1000

600-1000

10-15

Batteries
Lead acid
Nickel metal
hydride
Li-ion

0.5100
0.5-50
0.5-50

100-200
200-400
200-400

150-300
300

1-10

200-500

100-800

50-1,000

500-1,000

10-15

Superconducting
magnetic energy
storage (SMES)

10-1,000

300-1,000

300-3,000

Supercapacitors

1-10

300

3,600

Mechanical
flywheels
Compressed air
energy storage
(CAES)

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

500

28

Storage Challenges for Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV)

Photo by IFCAR on Wikimedia Commons.

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 Storage

29

Energy Storage for an HEV


Batteries
Lead-acid
Lithium-ion
Nickel-metal hydride
Ultracapacitors
Flywheels

31
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Energy Storage in HEVs:


Technical Challenges
Low Specific Energy: Batteries are Heavy!
Cycling Lifetime
Many batteries lose capacity on each charge/discharge
Can ameliorate by not charging/discharging all the way

Power Density
Existing batteries limit ability to absorb energy from regenerative
braking
Opportunities for super capacitors or flywheels

Charging battery-only vehicles rapidly

32
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Environmental issues for energy storage


Land use
inundation caused by hydro projects
thermal (hot/cold) island local effects
underground storage systems have special
geotechnical requirements to insure safe operation
Materials toxicity disposal and recycle e.g. batteries
Durability and lifetime of entire system
Emissions during manufacture and operation

33
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Relevance of energy storage to sustainability


Essential for effective use of intermittent renewable energy
resources including solar, wind, biomass, and hydro
Storage can provide quality energy when it is needed
Critical for high efficiency hybrid ICE/electric and fuel cell
vehicles
Full life cycle environmental impacts must be considered in
tradeoffs -- especially for pumped hydro and batteries
Continuing advances in technology and deployment will lower
costs to enable broader participation for electric and thermal
storage at scales from 10 W to 100 kW for seconds to 100
hours
Major innovations are needed for new systems to have an
impact at largest scale (> 100 MW, >5 GWh)

34

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Energy Transmission outline of topics


Options and costs
Infrastructure and scale
Issues

35
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

There are many options for


energy transport:
For electricity -- we have
wires (AC and DC)
For fossil fuels gas/oil/coal
we have - pipelines
trains
Graph removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 16.7
in Tester, Jefferson W., et al. Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options.
trucks
MIT Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780262201537.
ships
For hot or cold water, steam
we have - pipelines
Costs scale with directly with
distance; $0.20-$0.60/bbl/1000 mi for
oil; 10x more for electricity & coal.
Transport very significant cost for
coal & gas far from markets. LNG
affordable to ship by sea, but very
expensive to liquefy in first place.

36

USA Energy Transport Infrastructure is


large and deeply entrenched
400,000+ miles of gas and oil pipelines
160,000+ miles of high voltage transmission lines

Image by jrawle on Flickr.

Image by SystemF92 on Flickr.

Energy transmission scale and performance


 Scale of energy transmission is Enormous!
 250,000 mi of gas pipelines of various sizes in the US supply
about 30 EJ per year
 supertankers carry 200,000 to 300,000 ton (1.4 to 2.1 million bbl
of oil) payloads long distances very efficiently -- 2000+ miles
 Oil pipelines can extend for long distances (1000 or more
miles) and have high capacity
e.g. max flow of 2.1 million bbl per day of crude over 900 miles
in 1988 from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska
 160,000+ miles of electric transmission lines in the US >250 kW
 a unit train carries 100,000+ tons of coal.
 Many options, but costs, energy consumption increase with distance
 Environmental Impacts
-Oil Spills
 Security, Political, and Right-of-Way issues
38
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Additional transmission issues


Security/Politics

Russian gas pipelines to Europe


How to get Caspian oil to market?
Many places in world rely on a single pipeline.
NIMBY concerns about shipping nuclear materials.

Pipelines, LNG, Electric Grid, Rail require huge upfront


capital investments
Investors taking a lot of risk, want guarantees
Supply resource must last many years

Often hard, expensive to secure right-of-way


To add new power lines or rail into cities
May not be worth it for small projects.
Complex regulations and permitting for electric utilities, pipeline
39
operations, rail.
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Assessing Storage/Transmission Issues


for New Energy Options: Stranded Gas
Efficiency:
gas-to-LNG(1-kshipdship)(1-kpipedpipe)gas-to-electricity(1-kwiredwire)

Economics: net present value!


Cost: NPV of LNG plant, terminals, ships,
pipeline, power plant, transmission lines, plus
cost of the gas, plus operating/maintenance
Revenue: NPV of the electricity
Size of resource is crucial: need many years of
revenue to pay back the capital costs
40
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Assessing Storage/Transmission Issues


for New Energy Options: Biomass
Efficiency:
(1-ktruckdtruck)biomass-to-fuel(1-kpipedpipe)
Can dramatically improve efficiency by locating conversion
plant next to waste heat source, but large losses in
trucking biomass to this location.

Economics:
Cost: NPV of conversion plant, trucks, pipeline, labor
to collect biomass.
NOTE: will conversion plant be used year-round? If so,
how to store the biomass from the harvest? If not, low
utilization rate of conversion plant.
Revenue: NPV of delivered fuel stream
41
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Energy storage and transmission summary


 Range of energy storage
- from watts to megawatts
- e.g. from small batteries to pumped hydropower
 Modes of energy storage
- potential energy ( pumped hydro , CAES)
- kinetic ( mechanical flywheels)
- thermal ( sensible and latent heat)
- chemical ( heats of reaction and combustion
for biomass, fossil, hydrogen, etc.)
- electrical (electrochemical, electrostatic, electromagnetic
batteries, supercapacitors, and SMES)
 Importance of both power and energy density (weight and/or
volume) e.g. Ragone plot of specific power versus specific energy
 Transmission many options but costs increase with distance while
performance decreases
 Environmental Impacts and sustainability issues
42
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Wind Power
Fundamentals
Presented by:
Alex Kalmikov and Katherine Dykes
With contributions from:
Kathy Araujo
PhD Candidates, MIT Mechanical
Engineering, Engineering Systems and
Urban Planning
MIT Wind Energy Group &
Wind Energy Projects in Action

Overview
Introduction
History of Wind Power
Wind Physics Basics
Wind Power Fundamentals
Technology Overview
Beyond the Science and Technology
Whats underway @ MIT

Global Cumulative Wind Power Capacity (MW)

2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
0

50,000

100,000

Source: EWEA, 2009; Wind Power Monthly, 2010

150,000

Wind Potential Worldwide Estimate


40x the current power consumption or more
than 5 times global use of all energy forms
(Lu et al, 2009)

U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab, 1985.

Wind Notables
 Cost competitive in areas with good wind resource
(IEA, 2006)
 Most economically feasible and fastest growing new
renewable energy
 Wind
35-45% new generation recently added in
US and Europe (GWEC, 2009)

 5 countries account for roughly 75% of total world


usage US, Germany, China, Spain and India
 Share of wind as a % of total power in wind power
leaders is on average 10-20% and continuing to
increase

Wind Power Status -- 2009


45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

Total Cumulative
Capacity

US

China

Germany

Spain

India

9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0

Rest of
world

New Capacity Adds

China

US

France

Spain

Germany

India

Source: Wind Power Monthly, January 2010

Rest of
world

Wind Power in History

Photo of windmills in Campo de Criptana, Spain removed due to copyright restrictions.

Brief History Early Systems


Harvesting wind power is not a new idea
sailing ships, wind-mills, wind-pumps
1st Wind Energy Systems
Ancient Civilization in the Near East / Persia
Vertical-Axis Wind-Mill: sails connected to a vertical
shaft connected to a grinding stone for milling

Wind in the Middle Ages


Post Mill Introduced in Northern Europe
Horizontal-Axis Wind-Mill: sails connected to a
horizontal shaft on a tower encasing gears and axles
for translating horizontal into rotational motion

Wind in 19th century US


Wind-rose horizontal-axis water-pumping wind-mills
found throughout rural America
Torrey, Volta (1976) Wind-Catchers: American Windmills of Yesterday and Tomorrow. Stephen Green Press, Vermont.
Righter, Robert (1996) Wind Energy in America. University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.

Photos by M. J. Roots and Ammodramus on Wikimedia Commons.

Brief History - Rise of Wind Powered Electricity


1888: Charles Brush builds first large-size wind
electricity generation turbine (17 m diameter
wind rose configuration, 12 kW generator)

1890s: Lewis Electric Company of New York


sells generators to retro-fit onto existing wind
mills

1920s-1950s: Propeller-type 2 & 3-blade


horizontal-axis wind electricity conversion
systems (WECS)

1940s 1960s: Rural Electrification in US and


Europe leads to decline in WECS use

Torrey, Volta (1976) Wind-Catchers: American Windmills of Yesterday and Tomorrow. Stephen Green Press, Vermont.
Righter, Robert (1996) Wind Energy in America. University of Oklahoma Press, Oklahoma.

Please see Heimpel, L. G. "How To Convert an Old Auto


Generator into a Wind-Driven Battery Charger." Popular Science
123 (August 1933): 68, 76. (View on Google Books.)

Brief History

Modern Era

Key attributes of this period:

Scale increase
Commercialization
Competitiveness
Grid integration

Catalyst for progress: OPEC Crisis (1970s)

Photo by Stig Nygaard on Flickr.

Economics
Energy independence
Environmental benefits

Turbine Standardization:
3-blade Upwind
Horizontal-Axis
on a monopole tower

Source for Graphic: Steve Connors, MIT Energy Initiative

Courtesy of Stephen Connors. Used with permission.

Wind Physics Basics

Origin of Wind
Wind Atmospheric air
in motion
Energy source
Solar radiation differentially
absorbed by earth surface
converted through convective
processes due to temperature
differences to air motion
Spatial Scales
Planetary scale: global circulation
Synoptic scale: weather systems

Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.

Meso scale: local topographic or


thermally induced circulations
Micro scale: urban topography

Source for Graphic: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Wind types
Planetary circulations:
Jet stream
Trade winds
Polar jets
Geostrophic winds
Thermal winds
Gradient winds

Katabatic / Anabatic winds topographic winds


Bora / Foehn / Chinook downslope wind storms
Sea Breeze / Land Breeze
Convective storms / Downdrafts
Hurricanes/ Typhoons
Tornadoes
Gusts / Dust devils / Microbursts
Nocturnal Jets

Atmospheric Waves

Wind Resource Availability and Variability

Wind maps from 3TIER and AWS removed


due to copyright restrictions.

Source: Steve Connors, MIT Energy Initiative

Courtesy of Stephen Connors. Used with permission.

Source for Wind Map Graphics: AWS Truewind and 3Tier

Fundamentals
of Wind Power
Wind Power Fundamentals

Fundamental Equation of Wind Power


Wind Power depends on:
amount of air (volume)
speed of air (velocity)
mass of air (density)
flowing through the area of interest (flux)

A
v

Kinetic Energy definition:


KE = * m * v 2
Power is KE per unit time:

* v2
P=* m
Fluid mechanics gives mass flow rate
(density * volume flux):
dm

= * A * v
dt
Thus:
Power ~ cube of velocity
P = * * A * v3

Power ~ air density


Power ~ rotor swept area A= r 2

Efficiency in Extracting Wind Power


Betz Limit & Power Coefficient:
Power Coefficient, Cp, is the ratio of power extracted by the turbine
to the total contained in the wind resource Cp = PT/PW
Turbine power output
PT = * * A * v 3 * Cp
The Betz Limit is the maximal possible Cp = 16/27

59% efficiency is the BEST a conventional wind turbine can do in


extracting power from the wind

Please see Betz' Law, Danish Wind Industry Association.

Power Curve of Wind Turbine


Capacity Factor (CF):
The fraction of the year the turbine generator is operating at
rated (peak) power
Capacity Factor = Average Output / Peak Output 30%

CF is based on both the characteristics of the turbine and the


site characteristics (typically 0.3 or above for a good site)
Wind Frequency Distribution

Power Curve of 1500 kW Turbine


0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

<1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20

Nameplate
Capacity

wind speed (m/s)

Wind Power Technology

Wind Turbine Types


Horizontal-Axis HAWT

Single to many blades - 2, 3 most efficient


Upwind, downwind facing
Solidity / Aspect Ratio speed and torque
Shrouded / Ducted Diffuser Augmented
Wind Turbine (DAWT)

Vertical-Axis VAWT
Darrieus / Egg-Beater (lift force driven)
Savonius (drag force driven)
Photos by Louise Docker on Flickr and aarchiba on Wikimedia Commons.
Photo of Windpods, Skystream, and Aerovironment
Architectural Wind removed due to copyright restrictions.

Photos courtesy of Steve Connors, MITEI

Lift and Drag Forces

Images of wind turbine aerodynamics and airfoil


forces removed due to copyright restrictions.

Wind Turbine Subsystems

Foundation
Tower
Nacelle
Hub & Rotor
Drivetrain
Gearbox
Generator

Electronics & Controls

Yaw
Pitch
Braking
Power Electronics
Cooling
Diagnostics

Image from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.

Foundations and Tower


Evolution from truss (early 1970s) to monopole towers

Photo by Rocco Lucia on Flickr and Leaflet on Wikimedia Commons.

Many different configurations proposed for offshore

Images from National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Nacelle, Rotor & Hub


Main Rotor Design Method (ideal
case):
1. Determine basic configuration:
orientation and blade number
2. take site wind speed and desired
power output
3. Calculate rotor diameter (accounting
for efficiency losses)
4. Select tip-speed ratio (higher 
more complex airfoils, noise) and
blade number (higher efficiency with
more blades)
5. Design blade including angle of
attack, lift and drag characteristics
6. Combine with theory or empirical
methods to determine optimum
blade shape
Graphic source Wind power: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E10.htm

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 121 in Fraenkel, P. L. Water
Lifting Devices. FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 43. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization, 1986. ISBN: 9789251025154.

Wind Turbine Blades


Blade tip speed:
2-Blade Systems and
Teetered Hubs:

Pitch
control:

http://wiki.windpower.org/index.php/Whence_wind%3F

Please see Rotor aerodynamics, No. of rotor blades, and Power


control of wind turbines, Danish Wind Industry Association.

Electrical Generator
Generator:
Rotating magnetic field induces current

Please see Synchronous machines and No. of poles, Danish Wind Industry Association.

Synchronous / Permanent Magnet Generator


Potential use without gearbox
Historically higher cost (use of rare-earth metals)

Asynchronous / Induction Generator


Slip (operation above/below synchronous speed) possible
Reduces gearbox wear
Masters, Gilbert, Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems, Wiley-IEEE Press, 2003
http://wiki.windpower.org/index.php/No._of_poles .

Control Systems & Electronics


Control methods
Drivetrain Speed

Fixed (direct grid connection) and


Variable (power electronics for
indirect grid connection)
Blade Regulation

Stall blade position fixed, angle


of attack increases with wind
speed until stall occurs behind
blade
Pitch blade position changes
with wind speed to actively
control low-speed shaft for a
more clean power curve

Wind Grid Integration


Short-term fluctuations and forecast error
Potential solutions undergoing research:
Grid Integration: Transmission Infrastructure,
Demand-Side Management and Advanced
Controls
Storage: flywheels, compressed air, batteries,
pumped-hydro, hydrogen, vehicle-2-grid (V2G)
Slide 8 in Dumas, John. "Impact of Wind Generation on ERCOT Operations." Gulf Coast Power Association, September 29, 2008.
Slide 14 in Atienza, Luis. "Wind Energy Development in Spain." Red Electrica de Espana, April 3, 2009.

Left graphic courtesy of ERCOT


Right graphic courtesy of RED Electrica de Espana

Future Technology Development


Improving Performance:
Capacity: higher heights, larger blades, superconducting
magnets
Capacity Factor: higher heights, advanced control methods
(individual pitch, smart-blades), site-specific designs

Reducing Costs:
Weight reduction: 2-blade designs, advanced materials, direct
drive systems
Offshore wind: foundations, construction and maintenance

Please see American Superconductor, Vergnet Groupe, and Northern Power Systems.

Future Technology Development


Improving Reliability and Availability:
Forecasting tools (technology and models)
Dealing with system loads

Advanced control methods, materials, preemptive


diagnostics and maintenance
Direct drive complete removal of gearbox

Novel designs:
Shrouded, floating, direct drive, and high-altitude concepts

Please see FloDesign Wind Turbine and Sky Windpower.

Going Beyond the Science &


Technology of Wind

Wind Energy Costs

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 1.3 in Krohn, Soren,
Poul-Erik Morthorst, and Shimon Awerbuch. "The Economics of Wind Energy." EWEA, March 2009.

Source: EWEA, 2009

% Cost Share of 5 MW Turbine Components

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 1.11 in Krohn, Soren,
Poul-Erik Morthorst, and Shimon Awerbuch. "The Economics of Wind Energy." EWEA, March 2009.

Source: EWEA, 2009, citing Wind Direction, Jan/Feb, 2007

Costs -- Levelized Comparison

Reported in US DOE. 2008 Renewable Energy Data Book

Policy Support Historically


US federal policy for wind energy
Periodic expiration of Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 1999,
2001, and 2003
2009 Stimulus package is supportive of wind power
Energy and/or Climate Legislation?

2400
1900
1400
900

US
1Wiser,

Denmark

R and Bolinger, M. (2008). Annual Report on US Wind Power: Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends.
US Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [USDOE EERE].

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

-100

1983

400
1981

PTC Expirations

Delta-Generation Capacity [MW]

Annual Change in Wind Generation Capacity for US

Policy Options Available


 Feed-in Tariff
 Guaranteed Markets (Public land)
 National Grid Development
 Carbon Tax/Cap and Trade
Others:

 Quota/Renewable Portfolio Standard


 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)/
Green Certificates
 Production Tax Credit (PTC)
 Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

Communities
Question: At the urban level, do we apply the same level of scrutiny
to flag and light poles, public art, signs and other power plants as we do
wind turbines?
Considerations: Jobs and industry development; sound and flicker;
Changing views (physical & conceptual); Integrated planning;

Cambridge, MA
Photos from Boston Museum of Science Wind Turbine Lab removed due to copyright restrictions.

Graphics Source: Museum of Science Wind Energy Lab, 2010

The Environment
Cleaner air -- reduced GHGs, particulates/pollutants,
waste; minimized opportunity for oil spills, natural
gas/nuclear plant leakage; more sustainable effects
Planning related to wildlife migration and habitats
Life cycle impacts of wind power relative
to other energy sources
Some of the most extensive monitoring
has been done in Denmark
finding post-installation benefits
Groups like Mass Audubon,
Natural Resources Defense Council,
World Wildlife Fund support wind power
projects like Cape Wind

Whats underway at MIT

MIT Project Full Breeze


3 and 6+ months of data at
two sites on MITs Briggs Field
Complemented with statistical
analysis using MeasureCorrelate-Predict method

Research project using


Computational Fluid
Dynamics techniques
for urban wind
applications
Published paper at
AWEA Windpower
2010 in Texas

Analysis Method
Height [m]
Mean Wind Speed [m/s]
Power Density [W/m^2]
Annual Energy Output
[kW-hr]
Annual Production CFD
[kW-hr]
Capacity Factor
Operational Time
Analysis Method

Met station 2
MCP
CFD
26
26
n/a
3.0
n/a
60.4

MCP
20
3.4
46.5

CFD
20
2.9
51.7

MCP
34
4.0
74.6

CFD
34
3.2
70.9

1,017

1,185

n/a

1,384

1,791

1,609

n/a

1,136

n/a

1,328

n/a

1,558

5%
38%

6%
28%

n/a
7%
n/a
30%
Met station 1

9%
51%

8%
33%

MCP
20

CFD
20

MCP
26

CFD
26

MCP
34

CFD
34

Mean Wind Speed [m/s]

3.3

2.7

3.7

2.9

n/a

3.1

Power Density [W/m^2]


Annual Energy Output
[kW-hr]
Annual Production
CFD [kW-hr]
Capacity Factor
Operational Time

39.4

41.9

55.6

50.2

n/a

60.5

817

974

1,259

1,193

n/a

1,430

n/a

931

n/a

1,135

n/a

1,377

4%
35%

5%
26%

6%
45%

6%
29%

n/a
n/a

7%
32%

Height [m]

Spatial Analysis of Wind Resource at MIT

3D simulations of wind resource structure at MIT


Wind speed

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Turbulence intensity

Wind Power Density at MIT


Wind
Power
Density
(W/m2)

Wind
Power
Density
(W/m2)

Q&A

THANK YOU

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Lecture: Systems Analysis Methodologies


Dr. John C. Wright

MIT - PSFC

28 SEP 2010

Introduction

Outline

O UTLINE

Scoping study
Systems analysis - increasing
detail
Life cycle analysis
Simulation models
Risk analysis and uncertainty
How are all these connected?

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Introduction

Outline

I NTRODUCTION

Many issues for sustainability

requiring balance

We need to quantify to

proceed

Deal with complexity and

uncertainty

Economics Environment

This is the goal Systems

Analysis

Society

End result often involves very,

very large computer codes

How do we make such

computer models?

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Scoping study

S COPING STUDY CHARACTERISTICS

Well see more of this in a fuel costs example next week.


Basic guidelines for a scoping study:

Highly simplied

Mostly linear analysis - add separate costs


Very few feedback effects

Advantages

Relatively simple to understand

Good overall picture

Identication of weaknesses

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

S YSTEMS A NALYSIS IS THE NEXT STEP IN EVALUATION

Assume a favorable scoping study


Next step is a detailed systems analysis
All elements are analyzed in much greater detail
For example in our nuclear plant scoping study we gave the fuel
price in $/kg
In a system analysis model these costs are further broken down
Fuel costs:

Mining costs

Conversion costs

Enrichment costs

Finance costs

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

M ODULARIZATION OF SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Each of these may be further analyzed one or two levels deeper.


Input data will be based on experience and future projections.
The analysis will account for uncertainties.
All lower level contributions are combined to form one module of
the systems code

the fuel cost module.

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

SA INCLUDES NON - LINEAR EFFECTS

A critical feature in SA is the inclusion of interdependencies.


Systems analysis are not linear.
They include feedback effects.
For example consider mining costs:

Plenty of Reserves no problem, linear relation works.

Reserves dwindle other issues arise

Fuel costs will rise

Will new fuel be found, if so how much?

How will this affect the projected cost of fuel?

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

B EWARE OF COMPLEX CODES .

Systems analysis code contains a large number of complex

modules

Often hard to understand the whole picture, often expert in part of


the picture.
Should be more reliable than a scoping study thought.
Warning:

Be very careful using complex systems

analysis codes!!

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

SA IS NOT ONLY ABOUT MONEY

Investors are not the only people to carry out systems analysis
Investors focus on nancial returns
Architectural engineers focus on technical credibility, schedule,
and cost
Environmentalists focus on pollution, waste disposal, greenhouse
gasses, etc.
Government focuses on the public good

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

G OVERNMENT IMPACT ON SA IS THROUGH REGULATION

Desirability of a regulation is in the eye of the stakeholder.


Everyone is a lobbyist.

Financial institutions.

Engineering rms.

Environmental groups.

Industrial groups.

Consideration of impact of regulation is part of any SA.


There often is an uncertain political aspect to a regulation.

10

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

S TRUCTURE OF A S YSTEMS A NALYSIS

Number of approaches to systems analysis


Method below is fairly typical
Goal of the analysis answer the question

Does it make sense to build a new power

plant (of type X)?

The end product a large, complex, hopefully all inclusive,

simulation code.

11

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

T HE S IMULATION C ODE

Technical aspects from a life cycle analysis


Regulation aspects from a risk analysis
Include feedback effects
Combine to create a nancial analysis

12

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Life Cycle Analysis


Systems Analysis

Life Cycle Analysis

L IFE C YCLE A NALYSIS (LCA) ELEMENTS

Emissions
Energy

Production of
Raw Materials

Wastes

Manufacturing
Process

Use of
Product

Wastes

Wastes

Disposal

Recycle

Wastes

Comprehensive cradle-to-grave, wells-to-wheels, dust-to-dust


Attributes:
analysisCosts, Resource use, Emissions, Wastes, Costs, Performance, etc.
Includes

Sum cumulative
attributes over total life cycle of product to compare net impacts
Raw materials

Materials processing

Manufacturing

Distribution

Repair and maintenance

Waste disposal

Decommissioning

13

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

MacDonalds

Styrofoam or paper?

Oil (bad?)

Trees (natural?)

Chemicals (worse)
Paper (good ?)
Styrofoam (??)
Oil

Chlorine or
Peroxide
Pulp
Paper

PCBs +
Dioxins

Benzene + C2H4 + etc.

Acid or Alkali

Water
Wastewater

Hard to recycle
Plastic coating
Landfill

Trash

CFCs
CO2
Pentane

Styrene

Polystyrene foam

McD
Recycle

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

Hydrogen Production Example


Make from steam methane
reforming?
Make from water electrolysis
using wind power?

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

Steam Methane Reforming

System Boundary Definition

Upstream
processes

Plant Construction
& Decommissioning

Resources
in

Hydrogen

Natural gas

production & distribution

Fossil fuel
energy in

SMR plant
operation

Electricity

generation

System Boundary

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

Emissions
air, water,
wastes

SMR Results

 H2 is a clean fuel, but its production from natural gas


has environmental consequences
 H2 plant itself produces few emissions, except CO2



CO2 is the largest air emission (98 wt%) and accounts


for 77% of the GWP
0.64 MJ of H2 produced for every 1 MJ of fossil
energy consumed

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

Wind/Electrolysis Study

turbines

electrolyzer

H2 storage

Wind turbines:
 Atlantic Orient Corporation (50kW x 3)
 Class 5 wind data from upper Midwest site
(North Dakota)
Electrolyzer:
 Stuart Energy (30 Nm3/hr nominal capacity)
Cars fueled: fleet of 46 at 3 kg/car/week

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

GWP and Energy Balance


Wind/Electrolysis

Preliminary results:
GWP = 650 g CO2-eq/kg H2
Only 5% of the greenhouse gas emissions from SMR

Energy balance = 20 MJ of H2 produced for every


1 MJ of fossil energy consumed
31 times more than the net energy balance from SMR

Emissions are from equipment manufacture


Majority from concrete bases for wind turbines
Water consumption in electrolysis accounts for nearly
all resources

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

Hydrogen Production Choice?

Wind power offers significant reduction in GHG


emissions
For transportation, there is a mismatch between
wind turbine energy availability and the large
concentrated populations of cars
Costs for hydrogen from wind power are MUCH
higher than those from SMR
For SMR, more fossil energy is consumed than H2
energy produced

Courtesy of Elisabeth M. Drake. Used with permission.

Systems Analysis

Life Cycle Analysis

ACCURACY REFLECTS UNCERTAINTIES

Technical accuracy is good


Based on established engineering principles
Amount of fuel per year
Amount of stainless steel pipe
Average lifetime of valves

Converting technical into $ more difcult


Interest rates
Ination rates

Cost of fuel

14

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

An Example

A N LCA OF NUCLEAR FUEL COST INCLUDING SCARCITY

Cost of nuclear fuel including scarcity


Reference case: U=$2000/kg
Breakdown from the MIT study for cost per kg
Ore
Enrichment
Fabrication
Storage and Disposal
Total

$437
$117
$825
$351
$2040

15

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

#$%&'(&)&*&+,&'-.%/&*0
12 3'2.&4',$05'''''''''''''''''''''678889:;<=
>5? 3'!'@>& A?&*%B'C+B''''''7B!D!8!8':>?*9E*
F'3'F.*+'*G5&''''''''''''''''''''''!B!D!8H':>?*9:;
I2'3'>5?9F'3'2.&49E*''''''''''''7B8D!8J :;<=9E*
K2 3'I2D12 3'!05 E*').&4''''''''6J7'I9E*
KLC2.&4 3'2.&4',$059:>?*

8BMH',&+509:>?*

!"

#$%&'($)(*+,(%$'*($-($.,

/"(01($.,(23,45'(/(01(.,652(*$(&',(7
8$'*($-($.,(3'(*+&'(9::;01<$.,
=.,(.,',.>,'(6*(*+3'(?.3%,(@(A3
A3 )$*(B,44(0)$B)
C''&D,(E"(2,6.'($-(.,',.>,'(-$.(!E"()&0,'
F+,)

#! ! #$ " %$ " &%$ " $ " ! #&'% "#$ ! $ " ! &'% "#$" ()*+,-.
G6%+()&0,(.,5&%,'(.,',.>,'(H2( #$$ " % ()*+,-.
!"

#$%&'(%&)*+,-,./, 01,23*.,-,./,-*2-*2*45&67%8&*84*7%9,

$! !% " ! $"  #$&' #%


08-7*84*8.,*$%((*%&6.,2-,*.23%'(:*2-*.,-,./,-*
'$%&'(,
;%93(,*98',(

$
#$&' %

"
#

+()* !% " ! + " %&' ,# # ! +" %&' ,#


$!
$" #$&' #%

<" =*!>?
!"

"#$%&''()($*+,%-../0)1
2345/6%$.%*30,/+6%7,+*)1%4+8%09+*:/%
#()9%)(4/
&1%0$1)%$.%$6/%:$/1%37%*/#%6/1/6;/1%
4+8%5/%.$3*'
<$)9%/../0)1%9+;/%+*%(47+0)%$*%)9/%
+4$3*)%$.%6/1/6;/1
!!

#$%&'()*%+&,-&'(.%/
#$+%%&%--%01/&2%1%+)34345&'
6%7890%)%41&,-&,82&4(.%/
6%7890%&,82&0,98&78941/&:31$&;<!&-+%%&4(.%/
=>&%8%01+3031?&2%)942&:388&340+%9/%&%90$&
?%9+&@ )%%1&4%:&2%)942&:31$&4(.%/
<82&4(.%/&+%7890%2&*?&4%:&4(.%/
<82&0,98&+%7890%)%41/&A&'0,98B#&A&CD!EB?+
'%:&2%)942&A&F&340+%9/%&G&1,198&78941/&A&E
!"

#$%&'()*%+&,-&'(.%/&01,234
5,)*62%&3%+)/

* !+" ! #$%&'%()*+,-.& " /012*3.4215.6.(' " +.7*51415%'8


*!"#$
! *********%&'( ***** " *******
+ ********9***:;:<*%&'(+
,)
! =:: " ==;>+
7%+%8&'2(.% 9&:;;8&'1,<= 9&!>;8&#? 9&";&@+/8&3&6/&
)%</(+%A&62&@%<+/
!"

#$%&'$($)*$(
'$($)*$(&+,&-,%.&o /,(0&,1&,)$&+,$(&23
4,(0&,1&,)$&+,$(&23&o ($5)/6&1,)&.$%&,)$
#$%&)$($)*$(&/,(0&7,)$&065.&8.80859&)$($)*$(
:20&;,2&9,($&7,)$&<$/52($&,1&8./)$5(8.+&
-$75.-&065.&;,2&+58.&%806&.$%&)$($)*$(

!"

#$%&'$($)*$(&+,-./0
1&(2345$&3-6$5

% !"# $& %  % $
% !"#  &&
!

'$ " ! '() # *" * " '


'$ $& % ! '$ " " ( #

% !"#
% !"# $& %

7$)$&'28 9&!:;<=8> ?@A-)$B&C2 9&DEE&F&?@A-)$B&


G.6&?H&9&!
#-/$&/I$&J$$6KG,?&5--4
C-)$+/0&6$4$.6(&-.&'2+/0

'2+/0&6$4$.6(&-.&C-)$+/0&
!"

Systems Analysis

An Example

E QUATIONS FOR THE COST OF ORE ARE NON - LINEAR

Known reserves and cost of ore are inter-related



Core (t) = Ci exp k1

10N(t)MF t
Ri (t) 10N(t)MF t

Ncoal
N(t) = Ni0 +
+ k2 Ni0 t
Tp

Core (t) Ci
Ri (t) = Ri0 1 + k3
Core (t)

k1 = 2.3, k2 = 0.05, k3 = 2

16

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

An Example

C OST OF ORE FROM SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

C[$/kg]
N[#]
R[107 kg]

1,000
800

Note the
singular
response
around 40
years. What
causes this?

600
400
200

What does a
plot of R vs C
look like?

0
0

10

20
Year

30

17

40

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

An Example

C ONCLUSION

Cost of ore increases by 30


Ore is 1/5 the cost of uranium
COE of uranium = 0.56 cent/kWhr
This yields 3.8 cents/kWhr
Not as bad when you calculate the present value
Still it could be a problem
Uncertainty: what is the sensitivity to k1 , k2 , k3

18

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

Risk Analysis

R ISK A NALYSIS

Risk analysis involves accidents to people or mechanical failures


Too many injuries or failures lower the capacity factor and reduce
revenue
We want to minimize risk but it is not possible to achieve zero risk
Qualitatively risk can be written as

Risk = Frequency Consequence

19

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

Risk Analysis

T YPES OF R ISK

Risk can be continuous or discrete


Continuous: exposure to toxic fumes
Discrete: steam pipe explosion
Consequences could cause minor injuries
Consequences could cause death
Consequences could involve land or water contamination
Even if no human or ecological damage, mechanical failures
lower capacity factor

20

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

Risk Analysis

AVOIDING R ISK

Three basic approaches:


Ultra robust design to minimize failure
Redundancy one system fails, another takes over
Increased shut-downs for maintenance and repairs

21

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

Risk Analysis

D ETERMINING R ISK

How do we determine risk?


This is the realm of risk analysis
Single component failures relatively easy
Qualication data available
History of real world experience
Can predict the mean time between failure

Single small failures often harmless


Single gigantic failures very rare

22

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

Risk Analysis

C OMPLEX FAILURES

Largest danger: often a sequence of


minor failures leads to major
catastrophe
For example: TMI, Challenger
Analysis requires sophisticated tools
Fault tree analysis
Event tree analysis
Uncertainty analysis

Probability of a severe accident


Greater for a sequence of minor

failures

Fault Tree example

Smaller for a single major failure


23

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis

Risk Analysis

W HAT TO DO ?

Recommendations vary by group


Builders tend to underestimate risks to keep the cost down
Example: Dont worry the Big Dig is safe
Others tend to overestimate the risks to avoid or delay
construction
Example: Nuclear is unsafe dont build it.
Example: Wind kill birds dont build it.

Often the arbiter of risks are government agencies the EPA,


NRC, FDA, etc.
Desire risk informed regulations
Regulations consistent with severity of the risk

24

SE T-4 Systems Analysis

#$%&''()*+,*-./%/0,12'/
345%64/)%+-)7%,88/9*%94$)*+(9*-4$%94)*%48%,%
245/+%2',$*:
#))(1/%-$-*-,'%9,2-*,'%94)*%-$9'(6/)%,''%
+/;(',*-4$)%,))49-,*/6%5-*<%+-)7
#)%94$)*+(9*-4$%2+49//6)=%$/5%+-)7)%1,>%?/%
-6/$*-8-/6
@</)/%9,$%'/,6%*4%$/5%+/;(',*-4$)
A/5%+/;(',*-4$)%'/,6%*4%94$)*+(9*-4$%9<,$;/)
B<,$;/%4+6/+)%-$9+/,)/%*-1/%,$6%94)*%48%
94$)*+(9*-4$
!"

#$%&'()*+,-.+/()&0(1%2
3**-4%&+$%&/)/+/52&.56/+52&.(*+&/*&'.56
3**-4%&+$%&/)/+/52&.()*+,-.+/()&+/4%&/*&#.
7%8&,%9-25+/()*&(:+%)&(..-,&,5)1(42;
<(,&*/462/./+;&5**-4%&+$5+&)%8&,%9-25+/()*&
(..-,&5+&+$%&,5+%&r 6%,&;%5,
=5.$&)%8&,%9-25+/()&/).,%5*%*&.(*+&>;&'
=5.$&)%8&,%9-25+/()&/).,%5*%*&+/4%&>;&+
?(52@&.52.-25+%&+$%&)%8&.(*+&(:&+$%&625)+&
/).2-1/)9&)%8&,%9-25+/()*
!"

#$%&'%(&)*+,-./0-1*+&2%.1*3
'%(&0*+,-./0-1*+&-14%&#05&6&*.171+89&-14%&#0
:9/,&%;-.8&.%7/98-1*+&-14%&' '&6&.#05&6&-*-89&+/4<%.&*=&0$8+7%,
>8-$%48-10899?

"!a ! "! " # %$ ! "! " %"!a%$


@*9A%&=*.&#05
"!a !

"!
!  % %$

'*-%&-$8-&.-&B&C&=*.&0*4:9%-1*+
!"

#$%&'%(&)*+,
-&+./.012&1234/%5,&$*06+&7*2&,$%&5%(&8*+,
a ! & !"# " ' %& ! & !"# "
& !"#

$%!
%&
!  $ %(

'*,%&,$1,&,&156&)&12%&2%01,%6
91:%&,&0123%2&; 7%(%2&(*2:%2+&5%%6%6<&0%16+&
,*&0*(%2&8*+,+
=4,&,$%>&12%&?1.6&*@%2&1&0*53%2&,./%
A.B%6&8*+,+&C%D3D&.5+42158%<&E%5%7.,+<&%,8DF&0%16&
,*&1&5%,&.582%1+%&.5&)81? 64%&,*&6%01>+
!"

"#$%&'(#)'*
+,-)%.%,/'0,-&1$%2'34)$54)%'4,$'&46#)

%( ! %( !"#$ " %( %"&'#


746#)'-#2/2'0,-)%42%'42'/'0,-)%42%2
+,-)%.%,/4&'&46#)'-#2/2'4)%'4221.%$'/#'2-4&%'
&0,%4)&8'50/3'0,0/04&'&46#)'-#2/2'*&46#)

%( %"&'# ! +!( %"&'#

%*
,)

9: 02'4'-#,2/4,/'46#1/'%;14&'/#':
!!

#$%&'())(*&+,-%
#$%&-%.&/(-0)12/),(-&/(0)&,0&3,4%-&56
%*!
%+
a ! , !"# "

, !"#
%, $"%& " -!, '"()%

*!
!  % %+
#$%&5%0)&0)17)%36
8,-,0$&/(-0)12/),(-&70&0((-&70&9(00,5:%&
%4%-&,;&,)&*%7-0&5(11(.,-3&*(1%&*(-%6&
29&;1(-)
!"

#$%&'$()#*+'),+-)''

Total Capital Cost

6.5

Ccapny
( )

3.5

2
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

y
delta t (years)

0.4

0.5
0.5

!"

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay


Nuclear Engineering Dept.

Energy Supply, Demand, and


Storage Planning
The Example of Electricity

PRESENTATION OUTLINE
I.

Introduction

II.

Demand Variations for Electricity

III.

Electricity Supply Availability

IV.

Locational-Based Electricity Markets


Locational-Based

INTRODUCTION

Due to Large Fluctuations in Supply and Demand,


Energy Systems Must be Able to Respond to Changing
Conditions in Order to Meet Consumer Energy Needs
Across Time and Space

Examples

Oil products: home heating oil and gasoline

Natural gas

Electricity is the Most Pronounced Example

I. Demand Variations

ANNUAL AND SEASONAL

DEMAND VARIATIONS

Annual

Driven by economic growth

Rough rule of thumb

Developed economies: electric growth rates


approximately equal to economic growth rates

Developing economies: electric growth rates


approximately twice that of economic growth rates

Seasonal Changes Due to

Weather

Changes in usage (e.g., lighting, air conditioning)

WEEKLY AND DAILY


DEMAND VARIATIONS

Weekly Variations Driven by Business Day vs.


Holiday/Weekend

Daily Variations Driven by Time of Day, Weather, and to


a Small Extent Spot
Spot Electricity
Electricity Prices ((so
so far)
far)

HOURLY ELECTRICITY DEMAND IN NEW

ENGLAND DURING TYPICAL SUMMER AND

WINDER MONDAYS AND SUNDAYS

25000

Demand (MW
(MW )

20000

15000

Sunday-Summer

Sunday-Winter
Monday-Winter
Monday-Summer

10000

5000

0
1

10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17

18 19 20 21

22 23 24

Hour Ending

ANNUAL LOAD DURATION


CURVE
MegaWatt
Area is the amount of MWh consumed
during the peak hour of the year
Area is the amount of MWh consumed
during the penultimate
during
penultimate peak
peak hour of the year

12

8760 Hours
8

USEFUL FACTS REGARDING


DEMAND VARIATIONS
Demand is an Empirically Determined Probability Distribution
Usually with a Long Tail
Lognormal type shape
Sometimes modeled as a Gamma Distribution
Probability

MW

Summer Peaks are More Pronounced Than Winter Peaks

SIMPLE DEMAND

CALCULATION

Problem

What is the amount of generation capacity needed to supply


20 GW of peak load?

If the systems load factor is .65, what is the average amount


of demand?

Assumptions

3% transmission losses and 6% distribution losses

20% capacity factor (amount of extra capacity needed


beyond system peak to account for outages - to be discussed
below)

10

SIMPLE DEMAND
CALCULATION (Cont)

Solution

Generation Capacity = 1.20 *[20 GW + 20 GW* 0.09]


= 26.2 GW

Load Factor = Average Demand/Peak Demand

Average Demand = 0.65*[20 GWh] = 13.0 GWh

11

ANNUAL LOAD DURATION


CURVE AND LOAD FACTOR
MegaWatt
The load factor is the
ratio of the area under
the load duration curve
with the area in the box

8760 Hours
12

II. Supply Variations

13

SPATIAL DEMAND

VARIATIONS

Size of Typical Electricity Wholesale Markets


England and Wales
Northeast area of North America
Within in these large areas, there are multiple control areas
(subregions that dispatch generation units within them) but
with wholesale transactions among
among control areas
Control areas
Independent system operators (ISOs)
Regional transmission organizations (RTOs)
Spatial Demand Variations Caused by
Differences in loads
Industrial vs. residential
Regional weather patterns
Time zones

14

SUPPLY OPTIONS

Multiple Types of Generation Units to Address Demand Variations

Baseload (run of river hydro, nuclear, coal, natural gas CCGT)


Intermediate (oil, natural gas CCGT)
Peaking (oil, diesel, natural gas CT, pumped storage)
Non- dispatchable (wind, solar, wave)
Tradeoffs
Capital and fixed costs vs. operating costs, which are primarily
driven by fuel costs and heat rate
Lower operating costs vs. operational flexibility (e.g., start up
time, ramp rate)
Who bears these costs influences investment decisions
Storage Options are Expensive (e.g., pumped storage, hydro
reservoirs)
15

TRANSMISSION
INFRASTRUCTURE

AC Transmission Lines (V 115 kV > 10,000 km)


DC Transmission Lines
Switch Gear, Transformers and Capacitor Banks

Distribution Lines and Support Hardware

16

ECONOMIES OF SCALE VS.

DEMAND UNCERTAINTY

Average Costs per MWh Decrease with the Capacity of a


Generation Unit (Economies of Scale)

 It is Less Expensive to Overbuild a System and Let

Demand Catch Up

But, Due to Uncertainty in Demand (Which is Influenced


by Price Feedbacks), Future Demand May Not Materialize
Quickly Enough to Justify the Additional up Front Capital
Costs (Option Value)

These Concepts Will be Discussed Later in the Course

17

GENERATION AVAILABILITY

Availability - The Probability That a Generation Unit Is


Not on Forced Outage at Some Future Time (not the
conventional definition of availability because it excludes
planned maintenance)

Availability = MTTF/(MTTF + MTTR)

MTTF is
is the mean time
time to
to failure
failure

MTTR is the mean time to repair

Expected failure rate = 1/MTTF =

Expected repair rate = 1/MTTR =


Unit
Up

Unit
Down

Generation Availabilities Range from 0.75 to 0.95


18

AVAILABILITY
Conventional Definition:
The probability that a generation unit will be able to
function as required at time, t, in the future.

19

CATEGORIES OF FAILURES

Independent Failures - The State of a Generator or Component

Does Not Depend on the States of Other Generators or


Components
Dependent Failures
Component state-dependent
Common
Common-cause
-cause failures - the cause of one generator to fail also
causes another unit to fail
extreme cold weather freezes coal piles
earthquakes trip multiple generation units
maintenance error results in multiple generation units
tripping
Safety policies - poor safety performance of one nuclear power
unit leads to shutting down other nuclear units
Environmental policies
20

Unit Type
FOSSIL

MW Trb/Gen

# of

Unit-

Nameplate

Units

Years

Unit Type

6774.33

NUCLEAR

All Sizes

All Fuel Types

1-99

1,465
353

1520.42

100-199

388

1780.25

200-299

172

823.33

300-399

126

599.75

400-599

225

600-799

140

800-999
1000 Plus

All Types

PWR

1062.00

49
13

All Sizes

Primary

1-99

250

200-299

119

Primary

Gas

51

253.00

66

320.58

All Sizes

40.50

33

161.00

All Sizes
400-799

CANDU

23.00

800-999

11

53.00

1000 Plus

17

85.00

13

25.17

All Sizes

353.33

JET

547.67

ENGINE**

165.00
60.00
491.42

GAS
TURBINE**

All Sizes

378

1-19

1753.25

50

224.67

20 Plus

328

1528.58

All Sizes

999

4608.58

1-19

187

838.17

37

158.75

20-49

254

1201.92

100-199

34

120.58

50 Plus

558

2568.50

200-299

10

35.00

300-399

14

64.83

400-599

15

51.67

COMB. CYCLE
(BLOCK
REPORTED
UNITS ONLY

All Sizes

179

HYDRO

All Sizes

1-99

600-799

38.42

800-999

17.17

1-99
100-199

411

1-29

1734.75

127

497.83

114

484.83

PUMPED

200-299

44

194.17

STORAGE

300-399

42

181.58

400-599

62

280.08

600-799

13

800-999
Lignite Primary

1000 Plus

85.17

168.00

704.17

All Sizes

Primary

175.08

34

113

128

38

1000 Plus

151

All Sizes

800-999

65.00

577.42

12

513.25

24

245.00

600-799
1000 Plus

113

112.08

1172.25

33

All Sizes
400-799

23

400-599
800-999

Years

800-999

730.75

75

Unit-

Units

678.58

4310.58

165

100-199
300-399

Oil

917

# of

Nameplate

400-799

BWR

Coal

MW Trb/Gen

All Sizes

9
23

5317.33

541

2319.25

30 Plus

679

2998.08

All Sizes

115

543.67

MULTI-BOILER/
MULTI-TURBINE

All Sizes

41.08

GEOTHERMAL

All Sizes

95.25

DIESEL**

All Sizes

55.17

1,220

719.83

41
****
213

**Caution: EFOR and WEFOR values may be low since deratings during reserve shutdown periods may not have been reported for a large number of these units.

*** The two methods for calculating combined cycle units is not available at this time.

**** Only two generating companies are reporting this type of unit. To retain confidentiality of the data, no data is reported here.

137.67

****

820.00

Seervice:
North American Reliability Council, Generation Availability Data S
rvice: http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4|43

GENERATION UNIT AVAILABILITY DATA

(2005-2009)

21

MODELING AVAILABLE
GENERATION
Available Capacity (MW)

Indicates
Blue Unit
is available

Using Monte Carlo simulation


determine for each unit
whether it is available during
and sum up available capacity
for each
for
each trial
trial

No. of trials

22

CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION


OF AVAILABLE GENERATION AND
IMPORT CAPACITY IN NEW ENGLAND
1.000
Mean=24975.87

0.800

Prob.

0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000
20

28

26

24

22

Values in Thousands
5%

90%

22.99

5%

26.47

Capacity in MW
23

SPATIAL ISSUES

Tradeoff Between the Relative Cost of Transporting Fuel or

Electricity
Mine mouth coal plants (cheaper to transport electricity)
Gas-fired unit in Boston (cheaper to transport nat. gas)
Relative cost of land
Opportunistic siting (as with IPPs)
Safety and Emissions
Nuclear power plants are usually not located near large
population centers
Urban areas may have stricter emission restrictions than
remote areas
Distributed Generation (cogen, fuel cells, diesels)

24

III. Matching
Matching S
Supply
upply and Demand

25

RELIABILITY AND MATCHING

SUPPLY AND DEMAND

Reliability - The Ability of an Electric Power System That


Results in Electricity Being Delivered to Customers Within
Accepted Standards and in the Amount Desired.

The Reliability of the Electric Power System Requires Almost


Instantaneous Matching of Supply and Demand

If a Mismatch Occurs That Results in a Reliability Problem, a


Large Number of Electric Customers, Not Just the Ones That
Caused the Mismatch, Have Their Service Interrupted

e.g., Western U.S. Summer of 1996

This Type of Economic Externality Does Not Exist in Other


Markets (e.g., store running out of newspapers)

26

RELIABILITY AND

AVAILABILITY TRENDS

Reliability*: The Probability of Successful Mission Completion.

Regional Scale Grid System Collapses are Becoming More


Frequent (e.g., August 14, 2003, northeast U.S and lower Canada;
midwest, 1998; west, 1996; Italy, 2003; London, 2003)


Deregulation is Resulting in Much Larger Flow of Power Over
Long Distances, as Merchant Power Plants Contract to Serve
Distance (usually industrial loads)

Grid Components and States are Operating Over Much Broader


Ranges and for Longer Times Than Designed For

Other Power Delivery Aspects (e.g., reactive power) are Excluded


From Markets, and are Provided More Poorly

* Conventional definition
27

III. Locational-Based Electricity


Markets

28

REAL AND REACTIVE POWER


E

Real Power = E I 1
cos
3
4
24
power factor

Reactive Power = E I sin

Grid Stability Requires Spatially Uniform E


Change Permits E to Stay Constant While Changing I
29

ELECTRIC SYSTEM TIMELINE

Transmission Construction:
3-10 years
Generation Construction:

2-10 years
Planned Generation and
Transmission Maintenance:
1-3 years
Unit commitment:
12 hours ahead for the next 24
hour day
Economic Dispatch:
Every 5 minutes but
planned for 6 hours
ahead

Time

Build

Maintain

Schedule Operate Real


Time

Note: diagram not drawn to scale


30

LOOP FLOWS

Node A

2/3 of flow

Node B

Generation

Major Load
Center
1/3 of flow

1/3 of flow

Node C
Assume each transmission line has the same impedance
Flows on each transmission line are be limited for a
variety of reasons (see next slide)
31

LOCATIONAL ELECTRICITY

PRICING

Dispatch Problem Formulation (constrained optimization):


Minimize cost of serving electric energy demand
Subject to
Demand = Supply
Transmission constraints
thermal limits: prevent damage to transmission
components
stability: keeping generation units in synchronism
voltage: maintain voltage within acceptable limits
frequency: maintain frequency within acceptable
limits
contingency: ability to withstand the failure of
components
32

LOCATIONAL ELECTRICITY

PRICING (Cont)

Dispatch Problem Solution:

Solution method is usually a linear program

For each time period (e.g., five minutes), a vector of


generation output for each generator

For each time period, a vector of prices at each node that


reflects the marginal cost of serving one more MWh at
that node for that time period

Nodal Price (t) = Marginal Fuel Cost


+ Variable Maintenance Cost
+ Transmission Constraints
+ Transmission Losses
33

IMPLICATIONS OF NODAL

PRICING

Prices Could be Negative


Prices May Increase Dramatically if a Constraint is Binding

e.g., a nuclear unit that does not want to turn off during
light load conditions because it would not be able to come
back on line during higher load periods
Cheap generation in the unconstrained area must be back
down and replaced with higher cost generation

Extremely Volatile Prices Across Space and Time

34

REAL TIME LOCATIONAL PRICES


IN THE NORTHEAST ($/MWH)
New York State

HQ
$16.95

Ontario
$19.23

$16.89
$43.33

New
England
$40.79

$19.13
$37.48
PJM
$20.20

NYC
$38.57

Long Island
$104.49
35

DISCUSSION OF CALIFORNIA

Electricity Restructuring Was Initiated at a Time of Excess

Generation Capacity and Motivated to Lower Rates for Retail


Customers and Encouraged by British Deregulatory Success
Need date for new generation capacity was believed to be
distant and beyond the time needed to site and build new
generation units
Market forces were assumed to be able to address
supply/demand mismatches in the interim
Desire to complete the bargain between utilities to recover
costs of past investments and politicians to lower electricity
prices reinforced the above beliefs
Dramatic Load Growth, Attenuated Market Signals Due to
Political Choices, and Time Lags in Siting In-State Generation
Has Lead to Supply Shortages
Forced Removal of Generating Assets Has Been Important, too
36

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Changes in the Electric Power Sector

Presented to

Sustainable Energy

Choosiing Among Opti


Ch
tions

St
Steve
F irfax

f
Fai
September 30, 2010

Outline

Outline

Who is Steve Fairfax?


Introduction to the grid
Bulk electric power marketplace
Distributed generation

Steve Fairfax

MIT
Course VIII 1978
Course VI, VIII 1984
1988-94 Head of engineering Alcator tokamak

Consultant, guest lectures 1994-present


1984-1986 Principal Engineer Cyborg, Newton MA
1986 1988 Principal Engineer KSI,
1986-1988
KSI Beverly MA
1994-1997 Failure Analysis Associates Inc.
1997-present
1997
present President, MTechnology, Inc.

MTechnology, Inc.

Founded 1996
Applied quantitative risk assessment to 7x24 industries
Leverage techniques, tools from nuclear power
Evaluat
E l te missiion-critical
iti l systems
t
from 30 kW to 180 MW
i
Power electronic
systems development
1200 kVA power plant for Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems
2 kA magnet protection system for proton beam therapy
cyclotron

Selected Clients

OEMs

Active Power
APC-MGE
Cummins
Emerson / Liebert
Power One
Rolls Royce Fuel Cell
S&C Electric Company
Siemens
Still River Systems
SustainX

Utilities

First Energy
Progress Energy
Salt River Project
NorthEast Utilities
Detroit Edison

End Users

Clean Energy Group


Fidelity Investments
First Solar
Goldman Sachs
Harvard Medical School
Jones Day
JP Morgan Chase
Merck & Co.
MIT

Consultants/Engineers

CH2M HILL Industrial Design &


Construction
EPRI PEAC
HDR
EYP Mission Critical Facilities
Jones Lang LaSalle
Tishman Speyer

Introduction to the grid

Role of electric power


Power pllants,
t transmi
t
issiion, distrib
t ibuti
tion
As-built summary
power, plants, lines, miles, substations, etc.
Transmission system design requirements
Transmission voltages, stability limits

Role of Electric Power


Power

National Academy of Engineering:

Greatest Engineering Achievements of the 20th Century


Century

#1 - Electrification
Electric power is essential to modern society
Critical infrastructure relying on electric power:

Information and communications


Banking finance
Banking,
finance, commerce
Oil and gas production and transport
Rail and air transport
Water
Sewage

US Generation by Energy Source, 2008

Energy Source

Number of
Generators

Nameplate Rating
Megawatts

Naturall G
Gas

5,467

454,611

Coal

1,445

337,300

104

106 147
106,147

Hydroelectric

3,996

77,731

Petroleum

3,768

63,655

Renewable

2,576

41,384

151

20,355

49

1042

17,658

1,104,486

Nuclear

Pumped Storage
Other
Total

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p2.html

US Generation, Change 2006-2008

Energy Source
Naturall G
Gas

Number of
Generators

Nameplate Rating
Megawatts
-3

+11,666

-48

+1,470

+562

Hydroelectric

+8

+312

Petroleum

24

-663

+753

+14,914

+1

+786

-103
103

-2,497
2 497

+734

+28,809

Coal
Nuclear

Renewable
Pumped Storage
Other
Total

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p2.html

Transmission Voltages

765 kV 2,426 miles


500 kV 25,000 miles
345 kV 51,025 miles
230 kV 76,437 miles
230-450 kV DC (+/-) 1,351 miles

500 kV DC (+/-) 1,333 miles


T t l 157
Total:
157,314
314 miles
il
Including 115 and 138 kV circuits:
680,000 miles

Interstate highways: 46,677 miles

Source: North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) 2001

Image by Rolypolyman on Wikimedia Commons.

Distribution
System
4160 to 69 kV

Facility Type

In Service

Transmission
Substations

~7,000

Distribution
Substations

>100,000

Distribution Circuit
Miles

>2,500,000

Diagram of a typical substation removed due to copyright restrictions.Please see Figure 1 in "Illustrated Glossary: Substations."
Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution. OSHA eTools, January 2010.

Purpose of HV Transmission System (as built)

Transmit power from hy


ydroelectric plants
Often long lines, subsidized by governments
James Bay to Montreal: 1,000 km, 11,000 MW
James Bay to Boston: 1,500 km, 2,200 MW

Bulk supply of power to load centers


Cities, large factories
Lines typically short, <100 miles, essentially dedicated

Interconnection between utility networks


Emergencies such as station or line failures

Share spinning reserves

reserves

Reduce required capacity margins

Fundamental Requirements of AC Transmission


Stability: Generators must remain in synchronism

synchronism

Stability decreases as lines are more heavily


loaded
Static Stability: Slowly increasing power will
eventually cause generators to pull out of
synchronization
Dynamic Stability: System must return to
stable operation after minor disturbance such
as step load
Transient Stability: System must recover after
major fault,
fault generator trip,
trip transformer failure

Fundamental Requirements of AC Transmission

Voltages must be kept near rated values

Undervoltage can damage equipment


Induction motor current increases sharply
p y
- Rotor heating
g
proportional to square of current

Electronic loads increase current to maintain constant


power
Line and system losses increase as square of
current
Negative resistance characteristic

Overvoltage can damage equipment


Insulation failure on HV, EHV, UHV equipment
Transformer saturation causes
Increased losses
Harmonics
Potential ferroresonance

Relatively small (5-7%) changes in transmission


voltages cause large, unpredictable changes in
power flow

Transmission Lines are Transmission Lines!

Diagram Representing Long Transmission Lines


IS

IR

R + jXL

ES

ER

-jXC

Sending End

Receiving End
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Typical values: R = 0.06 ohm per mile Z = 300 ohms


XL = 0.8
0 8 ohm per mile

XC = 0.2
0 2 megohm per mile

Capacity Limits for Transmission Lines

Graph removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 7 in Hurst, Eric, and Brendan
Kirby. "Transmission Planning for a Restructuring U.S. Electricity Industry."
Edison Electric Institute, June 2001.

Source: Transmission Planning


g for a Restructuring
g U.S. Electricityy
Industry, Eric Hurst and Brendan Kirby, prepared for Edison Electric
Institute, 2001

Changes in the Electric Grid

Demand
Regulation
Generation Mix
Transmission
Technology

Changes in the Electric Grid - Demand

Electric utilities forecast demand to increase 2008-2017 by


17 percentt (128 GW) in
i the
th U
United
it d St
Stattes
8 percent (6 GW) in Canada,
Generation resources* are forecast to increase by only
4.6 percent (42 GW) in the U.S. and by
1.1 percent (1 GW) in Canada.
Electric capacity margins will decline over the 20082017 period in
most regions.
North American Electric Reliability Council.
2008 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.
*Net generating capacity resources (existing, under construction, or planned) considered
available (net operable), deliverable, and committed to serve demand, plus the net of
capacity purchases and sales.

Demand for Electric Power Continues to Grow

Electric Generation 1949-2008


1949-2008

Megaw
watt - Hours

3.E+9

2.E+9

1.E+9

0.E+0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/elect.html

Changes in the Electric Grid - Regulation

Federal intervention accelerating in pace and scope


1978 PURPA, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act aka
deregulation
deregulation aka re-regulation
re regulation
1992 Energy Policy Act Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission given broad powers over wholesale generation
and transmission network
1996 FERC orders 888 and 889 open access transmission
2005 and 2007 Energy Acts - mandates on



Renewable energy
Demand management
Smart metering
Financial incentives

2008 - Energy legislation in the bailout bill(s)


bill(s)

2009 and 2010 lost track

Changes in the Electric Grid - Regulation

Image from "Electric Power Industry Restructuring Fact Sheet." Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, July 27, 2005.

Changes in the Electric Grid - Regulation

Image from "Electric Power Industry Restructuring Fact Sheet." Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, July 27, 2005.

Changes in the Electric Grid - Regulation


The California Experience
1996
Apr 1998
May 2000
Jun 14, 2000
Aug 2000

California deregulates

Spot market for energy begins operation.

Significant energy price rises.

Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area

San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging

manipulation of the markets.

Jan 17-18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers.

Jan 17, 2001


Governor Davis declares a state of emergency.

M 19
Mar
19-20,
20 2001 Black
Bl koutts aff
ffectt 1.5
1 5 milli

illion custtomers.

Apr 2001
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. files for bankruptcy.

May 7-8, 2001


Blackouts affect 167,000 customers.

Sep
p2001
Energy
gy p
prices normalize.

Dec 2001
Allegations that energy prices were manipulated by Enron.

Feb 2002
FERC begins investigation of Enron's involvement.

Oct 7, 2003
Governor Davis loses 1st recall election in state history

Nov 13,
13 2003
Governor Davis ends the state of emergency
emergency.

Lesson for Aspiring Politicians

Keep the lights on!

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Generation Mix

Natural Gas is the only large-scale generating

technology that can be permitted in much of

the US today
States have begun denying permits for new
coal plant construction by characterizing CO2
as a pollutant.
Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards

mandate the use of certain generation
technologies in 30 states
16 Combined Construction and Operating
License applications to build 24 new reactors
filed with NRC; 2
2-4
4 anticipated online by 2018

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Transmission Syystem

Designed, as-built purpose of transmission:


Transmit power from hydroelectric plants
Bulk supply of power to load centers
Emergency interconnection between utility networks

Legislated new purpose of transmission:


Enable wholesale trade and comp
petition
Provide equal access to all
Enable wind farms

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Transmission Syystem

680,000 miles in service


7,100
7 100 miles
il planned
l
d additions
dditi
through
th
h 2015

2015

Effective nationalization of transmission assets


by FERC discourages private investment
330 MW 25-mile (small, short) Cross Sound

Cable

lay dormant for 2 years after completion activated


via FERC emergency order after August 2003
blackout

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Transmission Syystem

The lack of adequate transmission emergency

transfer capability or transmission service

agreements could limit the ability to deliver

deliver
available resources from areas of surplus to

areas of need.

- North American Electric Reliability Council.


2006 Long-Term Reliability Assessment.

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Transmission Syystem

Public opposition to new transmission facilities is

deep and effective.


effective

DOE announced in 2007 the draft designation of

two National Interest Electric Transmission

Corridors. The federal government has

concluded that a significant regional

transmission constraint or congestion problem


exists one that is adversely affecting
consumers and that has advanced to the point
where there is national interest in alleviating
it.
http://nietc.anl.gov/index.cfm

http://nietc.anl.gov/index.cfm

Image by Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy.

Image by Office of Electricity Delivery & Energy Reliability, U.S. Department of Energy.

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Transmission Syystem

Electricity follows the path of least resistance.

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Transmission Syystem

Electricity follows the path of least resistance.

Electricity follows all available paths


paths, in inverse proportion
proportion

to the impedance of each path.

Power flow obeys physics, not contracts

Power follows multiple paths

Loop flow consumes line


capacity without delivering
power

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Pleases see Fig. 2 in Lerner, Eric J. "What's Wrong with the Electric Grid?"
The Industrial Physicist 9 (October/November 2003): 8-13.

Source: Whats Wrong with the Electric Grid, Eric Lerner, The Industrial Physicist, October
2003

Chang
ges in the Electric Grid - Technology

gy
Demand (customer) side

Growing dependency on computers and communications


Growing sensitivity to power quality, interruptions
Generation side
Shrinking capacity margins and redundancy in

generation, transmission

Growing dependence on unreliable, non-dispatchable renewable


energy sources
February 2008 drop in West Texas wind power caused
Interruptible customers to be curtailed
High probability of rolling Davis recall blackouts
Must-run
Must run cogeneration plants in Denmark requires much of
winter wind energy to be sold to Sweden at bargain prices
Nellis Solar Plant in Nevada 30 MW to 2 MW as clouds
pass over
European ISOs increasingly limit wind power capacity that
may be bid

Power requirements historically determined by


demand
Typical Summer Load Curve for PJM

53000

Off-peak hours 23:00 - 7:00

On peak hours 7:00 - 23:00

Predictable,
correlated with
calendar weather
calendar,

48000

Load

43000

38000

33000

0
11
:0
0
12
:0
0
13
:0
0
14
:0
0
15
:0
0
16
:0
0
17
:0
0
18
:0
0
19
:0
0
20
:0
0
21
:0
0
22
:0
0
23
:0
0
24
:0
0

:0

:0

10

09

:0
08

:0
07

:0
06

:0

05

:0

:0

04

03

:0

02

:0

:0
00

01

28000

Time

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Data from www.pjm.com.

New mix results in rap


pid chang
ges in generation

Wind power can start or stop in minutes


Solar power changes in seconds
Large gas turbines take several minutes to ramp up or
down
Reduced life expectancy from rapid cycling
New market for frequency stabilization
Formerlyysu pplied byy excess sp
pinning

g cap
pacityy
Transmission operators generally limited to 4-second
response time
Technologies that are too expensive for wholesale

wholesale
competition find a niche in frequency stabilization
Flywheel energy storage
Advanced battery energy storage

Demand Resp
ponse

Central planning vision: reduce demand when load is


high, capacity is low.
Requires detailed metering and remote control of millions of
appliances
Consumers perception: Turn off my air conditioner during a
heat wave
wave.
Subject matter expert: Former California Governor Gray Davis

Distributed Generation

Generation connected at the distribution system level


Generally more expensive, less safe, higher polluting
but
Only possibility to meet growing demand without new
transmission and large central generation facilities

Distributed Generation

Results in very large (10-100x) increase in number of


sources connected to network
Violates basic design assumptions regarding the direction
of power flow
Sig
gnificant technical problems remain unsolved
Safety of linemen
Coordination during faults
Interaction with existing voltage regulation infrastructure
Stability
Reliability
Reactive power supply
- and
d many more

Changes in the Electric Grid

Demand strong and growing. Recession/depression will reduce


rate of growth. Projected 1% decrease in MWh generation 2008
2009 is only the third decrease since 1949. Some areas (e.g. Detroit)
are experiienciing siignifi
ificantt red
ductitions in load
d.
Regulation strong and growing. Increasing intervention into
markets, political selection of favored technolog
gies,
Generation Mix Less fuel diversity (more reliance on natural gas)
plus new plants that cannot be dispatched and fail frequently with
little warning.
warning
Transmission Extremely sophisticated system built in 1950s-70s
being used for unforeseen purposes. Operating outside design
assumptions and limits. Nationalization of assets have drastically
reduced incentives for private investment. Nimby, Banana and Nope.
Technology Consumer and commercial power requirements
trending towards higher quality and reliability, while grid systemic
trends are opposite.

Tremendous business and employment opportunities

Sustainable Energy no opinion.


Sustainable profits impossible in free markets.
Profit and loss are generated by success or failure in adjusting
the course of production activities to the most urgent demand
of the consumers. Once this adjustment is achieved, they
disappear. - Ludwig von Mises, Profit and Loss

http://mises.org/books/profitloss.pdf

Transient profits, quantity unknown almost certain.

Conclusions

Electric power has not been a major career choice for


th pastt 3 decad
the
d
des.
Aging of the electric power industry workforce is a
growing concern and recognized by NERC as a potential
th
threat
t to
t the
th reliability
li bilit off th
the grid.
id
Financial engineering is unlikely to be hiring again soon.
The demand for electric power remains strong.
The present supply system is being stressed by
age, legislation, re-purposing, and new generation
sources with new and different characteristics.
New technology, new rules, new consumer
requirements are creating major new opportunities.

Thank you.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

New Challenges

and Opportunities

for the Electric Grid

Tim Heidel
Research Director / Postdoctoral Associate

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study

Sustainable Energy Choosing Among Options

September 30, 2010

OUTLINE

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study


Smart Grid
New Challenges/Opportunities:
Challenge: more wind and solar, remote and distributed

Opportunity: new remote sensing & automation technologies


Challenge: electrification of transportation systems
Opportunity: technologies that can make demand more
responsive to system conditions
Challenge: data communications, cybersecurity, & privacy

OUTLINE

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study


Smart Grid
New Challenges/Opportunities:
Challenge: more wind and solar, remote and distributed

Opportunity: new remote sensing & automation technologies


Challenge: electrification of transportation systems
Opportunity: technologies that can make demand more
responsive to system conditions
Challenge: data communications, cybersecurity, & privacy

MIT FUTURE OF STUDIES

MIT faculty have, over the last several


years, conducted several indepth
multidisciplinary energy studies
designed to inform future energy
options, research, technology
choices, and public policy
development.
These studies grounded in science,
supported by objective
economic/policy analysis,
comprehensive in scope and input
underscore MIT's role as an "honest
broker" on energy issues.

THE FUTURE OF THE GRID MOTIVATION

The US electric grid, the system that links generation to load, is


perhaps not broken at present, but
It faces a number of new challenges and, because of advances in
technology, new opportunities
There is an enormous amount of hype around the smart grid,
much of it supplied by equipment vendors
We aim to provide an objective analysis of the new challenges
and opportunities the US grid faces, focusing on two questions:
Can existing institutions and policies be relied upon to meet

the new challenges and seize the emerging opportunities?

If not, what changes are required?


5

STUDY BACKGROUND

Study team recruited, work began in fall of 2009; initial


focus was on narrowing the project scope.
Recruited an Advisory Committee; met (on scope) in May
2010; will meet again in October and early in 2011.
Have identified & studied key challenges & opportunities,
but have not yet agreed on recommendations.
Will finish study, with recommendations, by May 2011.
Today: some thoughts on the challenges & opportunities
on which we are working.
Opinions in this talk are mine alone, not the research teams!
6

RESEARCH TEAM

CoDirectors:

Richard Schmalensee

Faculty/Staff:

Khurram Afridi

Howard W Johnson Prof. of Economics and Management


Former Dean, Sloan School of Management

Visiting Associate Professor

Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

Gary DesGroseilliers
Executive Director

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study

Jerrold M. Grochow
Former Vice President

Information Services and Technology, MIT

Timothy D. Heidel
Postdoctoral Associate / Research Director

MIT Energy Initiative

William Hogan
Raymond Plank Professor of Global Energy Policy
HEPG Research Director
MossavarRahmani Center for Business and Government
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard

Henry D. Jacoby
William F. Pounds Professor of Management Emeritus
Professor of Applied Economics
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research

Students:

John G. Kassakian
Professor
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

James L. Kirtley
Professor
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

Harvey Michaels
Energy Efficiency Research Director/Lecturer
Department of Urban Studies and Planning

Ignacio PerezArriaga
Visiting Professor

Engineering Systems Division

David J. Perreault
Associate Professor
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science

Nancy L. Rose
Professor

Department of Economics

Gerald L. Wilson
Professor Emeritus
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
Former Dean, School of Engineering

Nabi Abudaldah, Minjie Chen, Samantha Gunter, P. Jordan Kwok, Vivek A. Sakhrani,
Jiankang Wang, Andrew Whitaker, Xiang Ling Yap

OUTLINE

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study


Smart Grid
New Challenges/Opportunities:
Challenge: more wind and solar, remote and distributed

Opportunity: new remote sensing & automation technologies


Challenge: electrification of transportation systems
Opportunity: technologies that can make demand more
responsive to system conditions
Challenge: data communications, cybersecurity, & privacy

Figure showing leading companies by market segment for an "end-to-end" smart grid has
been removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Leeds, David J. "The Smart Grid in
2010: Market Segments, Applications, and Industry Players." GTM Research, July 13, 2009.

Well fund a better, smarter electricity grid and train workers to


build it
~ President Barack Obama
To meet the energy challenge and create a 21st century energy
economy, we need a 21st century electric grid
~ Secretary of Energy Steven Chu

A smart electricity grid will revolutionize the way we use


energy
~ Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke
[With] a new, American-built smart grid, the same people who work on
killer apps for an iPhone will now help you know how much energy you
use from your iFridge, iStove, or iToaster.
~ Congressman Ed Markey
12

U.S. SMART GRID LEGISLATION


Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPACT 2005)
Established a definition for Smart Metering / Advanced Metering

Energy Independence and Security Act 2007 (EISA 2007)


Title XIII established Smart Grid concepts in law
Established program to provide matching grant money for Smart Grid
investments
Directed NIST to come up with Interoperability Standards

American Recovery & Reinvestment Act 2009 (ARRA 2009)

Provided funding for EPACT 2005 and EISA 2007 provisions


13

ARRA 2009 SMART GRID FUNDING

Smart Grid Investment Grants (100 projects) ($3.4 billion)


850 PMUs covering 100% of transmission
200,000 smart transformers
700 automated substations
40 million smart meters
1 million inhome displays
Smart Grid Demonstration Projects (32 projects) ($620 million)
16 storage projects
16 regional demonstrations

More Information: http://www.smartgrid.gov

14

SMART GRID DEFINITIONS


Europe (Eurelectric):
"A smart grid is an electric network that can intelligently integrate the
behavior and actions of all users connected to it generators,
consumers, and those that do both in order to efficiently ensure
sustainable, economic, and secure electricity supply."

United States (Department of Energy):


"A Smart Grid uses digital technology to improve reliability, security,
and efficiency of the electric system: from large generation, through
the delivery systems to electricity consumers and a growing number of
distributed generation and storage resources."
15

SO, WHAT IS A SMART GRID?


A. Anything a vendor tells you that Smart Grid is (it usually also happens to
be what the vendor is selling)
B. Whatever Congress, the PUC, State Legislature, or DOE wants it to be (and
is willing to pay for)
C. Anything that involves adding new technology to the electric grid
D. The merger of the Telecommunications and Electric Utility industries
E. All of the above

16

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT 2007


SEC. 1301 STATEMENT OF POLICY ON MODERNIZATION
OF ELECTRICITY GRID

17
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140, 110th Congress.

OUTLINE

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study


Smart Grid
New Challenges/Opportunities:
Challenge: more wind and solar, remote and distributed

Opportunity: new remote sensing & automation technologies


Challenge: electrification of transportation systems
Opportunity: technologies that can make demand more
responsive to system conditions
Challenge: data communications, cybersecurity, & privacy

18

INSTITUTIONAL COMPLEXITY (US GRID)

Began with municipal regulation of integrated private systems, then state


regulation; federal role is limited; no comprehensive national policy.
Generation: investorowned firms (84% of generation), plus cooperatives and
systems owned by city, state, and federal governments
Transmission/Distribution: 3,200 government owned, cooperative, and
(stateregulated) investorowned entities (242 investorowned, 65% of sales)
Wholesale market deregulation began in 1990s, halted by the California
meltdown of 200001:
Organized (ISO/RTO) wholesale markets serve about 2/3 of load, about 42% of
generation nationally by investorowned firms without retail customers;
Regulated integrated companies dominate in the southeast;
Federal hydro generation and transmission are important in the west.

No two utilities/states/regions /countries are identical, historical evolution


occurred differently and at different rates
19

ORGANIZED ISO/RTO MARKETS (U.S.)

Map of ISO/RTO operating regions removed due to copyright restrictions.

20

OUTLINE

MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study


Smart Grid
New Challenges/Opportunities:
Challenge: more wind and solar, remote and distributed

Opportunity: new remote sensing & automation technologies


Challenge: electrification of transportation systems
Opportunity: technologies that can make demand more
responsive to system conditions
Challenge: data communications, cybersecurity, & privacy

21

CHALLENGE: RENEWABLE GENERATION

29 states & the District of Columbia have renewable portfolio standards,


requiring nonhydro renewable (NHR) generation.
A national standard is possible, more state standards are likely, so expect
requirements for more gridscale and distributed NHR generation, mainly
intermittent wind & solar.

Maps of U.S. Wind Resource (50m) and Annual Direct Normal Solar Radiation
(Two-Axis Tracking Concentrator) removed due to copyright restrictions.

22

Graphs removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see p. 11 in "Implementation of Market &
Operational Framework for Wind Integration in Alberta."
AESO Recommendation Paper, March 2009.

More grid-scale renewable generation is likely to require more longdistance transmission.


More grid-scale renewable generation is likely to require system
operation changes (due to intermittency and imperfect predictability)

CHALLENGE: RENEWABLE GENERATION


Longdistance transmission for remote gridscale renewables
poses both technical and policy challenges:
Planning must now account for new goal (policy lines)
Planning will need to reflect optimization under uncertainty
Planning and allocating costs of transmission across traditional regional
boundaries is difficult (currently use ad hoc, casebecase processes)

Distributed renewables (e.g., rooftop solar) pose different

technical and (harder) policy challenges

May need to configure distribution systems for twoway power flow & to
maintain worker safety
23

Must provide incentives for the necessary investment even though it


will lead to lower sales; need sophisticated uncoupling?

OPPORTUNITY: SENSING / AUTOMATION


Recent technical advances offer the potential to dramatically increase the

observability and controllability of transmission and distribution systems.

System Monitoring Today> Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems
Functions: system monitoring, state estimation, blackout detection.
Age:

Have been in use for the past 40 years.

Have typically not kept pace with rapid advances in sensor technologies and information

processing techniques.

Performance:
Record data every 24 seconds, sufficient for voltage monitoring, but not sufficient for phase
monitoring.
Can have 30+ second delay for detecting blackouts.
Measurements are not synchronized.

Automatic Generation Control (Not centralized)


Primary control methodology today, individual generators do not usually know system state

24

THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING PHASE

Calculating flows on a transmission line

Phase has not been used in the past


The active and reactive power flows on lines
are determined by three parameters along the
lines:
line impedance
voltages amplitudes
phases
Only frequency and voltage are monitored in
the current system control architecture.

New tech. could measure and control phase


Synchrophasor measurement units (PMUs)
make large scale synchronous phase
measurement possible.
Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS)
make phase modification possible.
25 Source: Song, S.-H., J.-U. Lim, et al. (2004). "Installation and operation of FACTS devices for enhancing steady-state
security." Electric Power Systems Research 70(1): 7-15.

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

SYNCROPHASOR MEASUREMENT UNITS (PMUs)

Measure instantaneous phase angle at their installed location


Often can take and transmit >30 measurements per second
Measurements are synchronized to a GPS time signal
IEEE Standard C37.118
250 already installed in North America, 850 more on the way
Phasor Representation
1

V1
2

V2

2
V1

V2
Signal 1
Reference

time = 0

26

Signal 2
Reference

time = 0

Common reference signal at remote locations possible due to GPS synchronization

Source: http://www.naspi.org/pmu/pmu.stm

Image by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by


Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.


Adapted from "What is Phasor Technology?"
Advanced Concepts FAQ, Phasor-RTDMS.

SYNCROPHASOR MEASUREMENT UNITS (PMUs)

Phasor measurement units (PMUs) and other sensors can provide


detailed, real time information on transmission system status,
potentially enabling increased capacity & enhanced reliability
Example:

Relative phase angle between two locations

during August 2003 blackout

Phase angle monitoring


applications could give system
operators early warning of
potential system instability

27

Courtesy Schweitzer Engineering Laboratory. Used with permission.

SYNCROPHASOR MEASUREMENT UNITS (PMUs)

Phasor measurement units (PMUs) and other sensors can provide


detailed, real time information on transmission system status,
potentially enabling increased capacity & enhanced reliability
Example:
PMUs could be used to calibrate

and/or improve system models

(used for operations, planning

and reliability studies)

28

Graphs removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 1-6 in


"Real-Time Application of Synchrophasors for Improving Reliability."
NERC, November 2010.

OPPORTUNITY: SENSING / AUTOMATION

A variety of recent technical advances offer potential to automate portions of


the distribution system

Screenshot of MicroSCADA Pro removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see p. 3 in


"MicroSCADA Pro for Network Control and Distribution Management." ABB Oy, 2010.

29
Source: ABB

CHALLENGE: TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION

Energy security & other concerns have led to state & federal
incentives for electric vehicles (EVs) and plugin hybrids (PHEVs)
U.S PHEV/EV Penetration Goals, Targets,
Projections, Forecasts, & Dreams
Nissan Leaf

Tesla Roadster

GE WattStation Charger
30
Source: Various (Contact me for original data sources).

PHEVs/EVs COULD BE LARGE NEW LOADS

Voltage
(VAC)

Current
(Amps)

Power
(kVA)

Freq.
(Hz)

Phase

Standard
Outlet

Level 1

120

12

1.44

60

Single

NEMA 515R

Level 2

208/240

32

6.7/7.7

60

Single

SAE J1772/3

Level 3

480

400

192

60

Three

N/A

Pack size:
9.3 kWh

Pack size:
5.9 kWh

Potential hourly demand for a PHEV20 Vehicle


31

S.W. Hadley and A. Tsvetkova, "Potential Impacts of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Regional Power Generation," 2008.

Figures by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.

PHEVs/EVs COULD BE LARGE NEW LOADS

On-peak (late afternoon) charging could increase peak load,


requiring substantial additional generation investment.
Potential impacts on:
Generation mix
Load forecasting ability
Distribution network

How to provide incentives


for off-peak charging?

32

Hourly Load Profiles (Lots of underlying assumptions)


S.W. Hadley and A. Tsvetkova, "Potential Impacts of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Regional Power Generation," 2008.

Figures by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy.

OPPORTUNITY: RESPONSIVE DEMAND


Traditionally, residential customers have not been responsive to
system conditions. (Customers do not know when electricity is
cheap vs. expensive, clean vs. polluting, etc.)
The potential costs of enabling residential customers to be more

responsive have come down significantly (given advances in IT)

Millions of meters

Largest ongoing/proposed AMI projects

(based on publicly available data)

Images of a computer, smart phone, washer and dryer, power meter,


and A/C thermostat have been removed due to copyright restrictions.

33

year

*high uncertainty projects

OPPORTUNITY: RESPONSIVE DEMAND

Peak demand occurs rarely (and is very expensive for the system)

34

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

OPPORTUNITY: RESPONSIVE DEMAND

Customers can reduce peak demand (given the right incentives.)

Graph removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 6 in Farugui, Ahmad, Ryan
Hledik, and Sanem Sergici. "Rethinking Prices." Public Utilities Fortnightly 148 (January
2010): 30-39.

35
Source: Faruqui, Hledik Sergici (2010)

POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF ADVANCED METERING

Text removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Table 1 in Abbott, Ralph E.,
Stephen C. Hadden, and Walter R. Levesque. "Deciding on Smart Meters."
Electric Perspectives 32 (March/April 2007): 52-65.

Source: Plexus Research, Inc., 2005

CHALLENGE: COMMUNICATIONS, CYBER

SECURITY, AND INFORMATION PRIVACY

Most of the new technologies involve more data transmission

from the network (PMUs) & end users (AMI) to control centers

37

Image by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). See www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

CHALLENGE: COMMUNICATIONS, CYBER

SECURITY, AND INFORMATION PRIVACY

38
Figure from "Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security: Volume 1, Smart Grid Cyber Security Strategy,
Architecture, and High-Level Requirements." NIST Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (August 2010): NISTIR 7628.

CHALLENGE: COMMUNICATIONS, CYBER

SECURITY, AND INFORMATION PRIVACY

39

Figure from "Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security: Volume 1, Smart Grid Cyber Security Strategy,
Architecture, and High-Level Requirements." NIST Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (August 2010): NISTIR 7628.

COMMUNICATIONS, CYBER-SECURITY,

AND INFORMATION PRIVACY

Debates about communications architecture internet plus


encryption v. telecom networks vs. private networks
Concern that AMI will tell utility personnel details of
household activities, especially absences
New technologies may bring greater vulnerability to errors or
sabotage that can induce automated responses that
produce service disruptions or (worst case) large blackouts

40

Conclusions
Despite relatively slow expected load growth, the next few

decades will see major changes in the US electric grid.

However, there is a lot of hype right now so do not believe


everything you hear.
Despite the hype, the electric grid will face many new challenges
and opportunities over the next few decades.
Some of those changes will occur naturally, as grid participants
pursue their selfinterest under existing policies
But there seem to be a few areas where increased R&D support or
changes in regulatory policy could facilitate desirable changes
41

And we hope to identify those areas in our report next spring!!

Thanks for Your Attention!

Tim Heidel

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Toolbox: Electrical Systems Dynamics


Dr. John C. Wright

MIT - PSFC

05 OCT 2010

Introduction

Outline

Outline

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see


"How Electricity Gets from the Power Station to your Home."
PowerWise Teacher's Center, 2007.

AC and DC power transmission


Basic electric circuits
Electricity and the grid

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

The war of the currents

Pros and Cons


One kills elephants
One has simpler infrastructure

Tesla

Why do we have AC and not


DC?
Look at a simple transmission
circuit to decide.
Use Voltage=120 VDC and
Power=1.2 GW

Edison

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Efficient transmission requires AC

Goals of the analysis


Find
Find
Find
Find

the
the
the
the

generator voltage
power delivered by the generator
power dissipated by the transmission line
ratio PTrans /PLoad

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Simple circuit models

A simple electric circuit

The current I =

VL
RL

The power to the load


VL2
2
PL = I RL = RL
Equating currents (from

Kirchhos Laws), the

transmission line power

RT VL2
2
PT = I RT = RL

RT
I
+
VG

VT

+
VL

RL

The power ratio is then the


ratio of resistances: PPTL = RRTL
Generator power
PG = PL + PT = 1 +

2
RT VL
RL RL

Generator voltage


VG = PIG = 1 + RRTL VL

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Simple circuit models

Efficiency requires most power is dissipated in

the load

Example for Al and household V

If RT /RL 1, then
PT PL

Most of the voltage


appears across the load.

So, we have very small


transmission losses.

For PL = 1.2 GW and VL = 120V


Then RL = PL /VL2 = 1.2 105

For transmission assume L = 50 km (a

short distance)

An Aluminum cable with A = 5 cm2

(to minimize sag, Cu not used.)

Resistivity of Al, = 2.8 108 -m

RT = L/A = 2.8 RL

Conclusion: not so good!

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Simple circuit models

AC can be used to increase the voltage

With AC we can use transformers


Step up the voltage at the generator
Transmit power at high voltage, low current
Step down the voltage at the load
Transmitting at low current should reduce transmission losses

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Simple circuit models

An Ideal Transformer

I1

I2

+
V1

n1

+
V2

n2

N =n2 /n1 = turns ratio


V2 =NV1
I2 =I1 /N
Physical process is conservation of
magnetic ux/energy
8

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Simple circuit models

An Ideal Transformer

Common examples of transformers:

I1

I2

+
V1

+
V2

n1

n2

N =n2 /n1 = turns ratio

V2 =NV1

I2 =I1 /N

Physical process is conservation of


Bottom right: Photo by mdverde on Flickr. Bottom left: Image by Tau Zero on Flickr.
magnetic ux/energy
Top right: Photo by brewbooks on Flickr.
8

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Analysis

AC transmission reduces losses

RT
+ V
T

I0

+
V1

VG
N1

I1

IL

+
V2

RL
N2

As before, PL = 1.2 GW, VL = 120 V , RL = 1.2 105


What are transformer and transmission requirements,
Such that PT PL ?
9

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Analysis

From the circuit:


PL =VL IL = RL IL2
PT =VT I1 = RT I12

From the transformer


relation, IL = N2 I1 , it
follows
PT
1 RT
=
2
PL
N2 RL

10

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

From the circuit:


PL =VL IL = RL IL2
PT =VT I1 = RT I12

Analysis

For N2 1 a huge reduction in


transmission losses

Practical numbers:

V0 = 12kV , V1 = 240kV (rms)

This implies that N1 = V1 /V0 = 20

From the transformer


relation, IL = N2 I1 , it
follows
PT
1 RT
= 2
PL
N2 RL

Assume small voltage drop across the


transmission line. Then V2 V1
Second turn ratio becomes
N2 = V2 /VL = 2000

Our transmission loss formula gives


PT /PL 6%

10

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

The downside to AC: Reactive power

A down side to AC: Reactive power


Why? Load is not pure resistive
Load usually has an inductive component
Resistance absorbs power
Inductor circulates power back and forth
This oscillating power is the reactive power

11

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Resistors, inductors and capacitors, oh my!

There are three basic circuit elements having dierent Ohms laws.
Element

Resistor

Inductor

Capacitor

Symbol

Ohms Law

V = RI

dI
V = L dt

dV
dt

I = sin t

V = R sin t

V = L cos t

V = C1 cos t

Phase shift

/2

/2

Impedance
Z [] = V /I

jL

j
C

12

= I /C

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase lags increase reactive power

2t
Current, I = Im sin( Tperiod
)
2t
Voltage, V = Vm sin( Tperiod
)

I /Im , V /Vm

0.5
0
0.5
1

t/Tperiod

13

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase lags increase reactive power

2t
Current, I = Im sin( Tperiod
)
2t
Voltage, V = Vm sin( Tperiod
)

Power,
1

2t
P =I V = Im Vm sin2 (
)
Tperiod

1
2t
= Im Vm 1 cos(2
)
2
Tperiod

I /Im , V /Vm

0.5
0
0.5
1

t/Tperiod

13

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase lags increase reactive power

2t
Current, I = Im sin( Tperiod
+ )
2t
Voltage, V = Vm sin( Tperiod
)

Power,
1

2t
2t
P = I V = Im Vm sin(
) sin(
+ )
Tperiod
Tperiod

1
2t
= Im Vm cos() cos(2
+ )
2
Tperiod

I /Im , V /Vm

0.5
0

cos() is known as the power factor

0.5
1

t/Tperiod

13

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Reactive power must be supplied.

For parts of the AC cycle the instantaneous power is greater than the

average power
Generator must be able to deliver this higher power even though it is
returned later
Bottom line: generator must have a higher volt-amp rating than
average power delivered: VARs and Watts.
Higher rating bigger size higher cost

14

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase shifts are introduced by inductance


A motor will have an inductance, L.

L
I
V cos(t)

15

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase shifts are introduced by inductance

A motor will have an inductance, L.


It will introduce a phase shift given by tan =

L
R

L
I
V cos(t)

15

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase shifts are introduced by inductance

A motor will have an inductance, L.


It will introduce a phase shift given by tan =
Amplitude of current will also be reduced.
V
I = 2 2
( L + R 2 )1/2

L
R

L
I
V cos(t)

15

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Phase shifts are introduced by inductance

A motor will have an inductance, L.


It will introduce a phase shift given by tan = RL
Amplitude of current will also be reduced.
V
I = 2 2
( L + R 2 )1/2
This all follows from adding up the voltages for a simple circuit:
dI
L + RI = V cos(t)
dt
L
I
V cos(t)

15

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

How to minimize the VA requirement?

To minimize the VA requirements on the generator we want 0

Assume the average power absorbed by the load is PL

Calculate the peak generator power [PG (t)]max as a function of PL


Note: The peak is 2 (rms volt-amp rating)

Less generator power is cheaper.

16

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Peak power from inductance


The power dissipated in the load:
PL = RI 2

RV 2
=
2 2
L + R2

The peak power delivered by the generator


Ppeak = VI (1 + cos ) =

V2
( 2 L2 +

R 2 )1/2

1+

R
( 2 L2 + R 2 )1/2

Using the expression for PL , we get:


Ppeak
=
2 PL

2 L2

1/2
2
R

2R
17

+R

1
SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC

Reactive power

Equivalent cir

Capacitance can balance out reactive power

Recall from our table that the phase


lags are opposite for inductance and
capacitance
tan L =

L
R ,

tan C =

1
C

Short answer: there is a capacitance


that will keep the current and voltage
in phase (but not eliminate the power
factor)
L
C= 2
R + 2 L2
Long answer follows.

Goal: Find C so there is no re


18

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

Analysis
I V relation for a capacitor
dV
I1(t ) = C G
dt

I V relation for the load


dI2

VG = RI 2 + L
dt

Conservation of current
I(t ) = I1(t ) + I2 (t )

31

Solution
Assume VG = V cos(Xt) (all voltages now rms)
Current in the capacitor branch
I1(t ) = XCV sin(Xt)

Current in the load branch (from before)


I2 (t ) =

(R

2 2 1/ 2

+X L

cos(Xt  G)

32

The total current


The total current flowing from the generator
I(t ) = I1(t ) + I2(t )

cos(Xt  G)

=V
 XC sin(Xt)
1/
2
(R 2 + X 2L2 )

cos(Xt)cos G
sin
G

sin(Xt)
=V
+
C

X

(R 2 + X 2L2 )1/ 2 (R 2 + X 2L2 )1/ 2

33

The value of C
Choose C for zero reactive power
Set sin(t) coefficient to zero
XC =

sin G

(R

2 2 1/ 2

+X L

Simplify by eliminating the power factor


L
C = 2
(R + X 2L2 )

34

Calculate the peak power


Calculate the peak power to learn what has
happened to the VA rating
Ppeak = [PG (t )]max = 2 [VI ]max
= 2V 2

cos G
(R 2 + X 2L2 )1/ 2

RV 2
=2 2
(R + X 2L2 )
= 2 PL

35

The Result
It worked!!
The VA requirement has been reduced
Ppeak
VA =
= PL
2

36

AC

Reactive power

Discussion

AC is good for transmission


Have to manage reactive power
Other aspects:
HVDC transmission lines
AC losses from corona discharge
Voltage and frequency tolerances
Stability of the grid to perturbations, eg a power plant going oline
or a transmission line going down.

19

SE T-6 Electrical Systems

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Toolbox 7: Economic Feasibility Assessment Methods


Dr. John C. Wright

MIT - PSFC

05 OCT 2010

Introduction

We have a working definition of sustainability


We need a consistent way to calculate energy costs
This helps to make fair comparisons
Good news: most energy costs are quantifiable
Bad news: lots of uncertainties in the input data

Interest rates over the next 40 years


Cost of natural gas over the next 40 years
Will there be a carbon tax?

Todays main focus is on economics


Goal: Show how to calculate the cost of energy in
cents/kWhr for any given option
Discuss briefly the importance of energy gain
3

Basic Economic Concepts


Use a simplified analysis
Discuss return on investment and
inflation
Discuss net present value
Discuss levelized cost
4

The Value of Money


The value of money changes with time
40 years ago a car cost $2,500
Today a similar car may cost $25,000
A key question How much is a dollar n years
from now worth to you today?
To answer this we need to take into account
Potential from investment income while
waiting
Inflation while waiting

Present Value
Should we invest in a power plant?
What is total outflow of cash during the plant
lifetime?
What is the total revenue income during the
plant lifetime
Take into account inflation
Take into account rate of return
Convert these into todays dollars
Calculate the present value of cash outflow
Calculate the present value of revenue
6

Net Present Value


Present value of cash outflow: PVcost
Present value of revenue: PVrev
Net present value is the difference

NPV = PVrev PVcost


For an investment to make sense

NPV > 0
7

Present Value of Cash Flow

$100 today is worth $100 today obvious


How much is $100 in 1 year worth to you today?
Say you start off today with $Pi
Invest it at a yearly rate of iR%=10%
One year from now you have $(1+ iR)Pi=$1.1Pi
Set this equal to $100
Then

$100
$100
=
= $90.91
Pi =
1 + iR
1.1
This is the present value of $100 a year from now
8

Generalize to n years
$P n years from now has a present value to
you today of

P
PV (P ) =
n
1
+
i
(
R)
This is true if you are spending $P n years from
now
This is true for revenue $P you receive n years
from now
Caution: Take taxes into account iR=(1-iTax)iTot
9

The Effects of Inflation


Assume you buy equipment n years from now that costs
$Pn
Its present value is

PV (Pn ) =

Pn
n
(1 + iR )

However, because of inflation the future cost of the


equipment is higher than todays price
If iI is the inflation rate then
n

Pn = (1 + iI ) Pi
10

The Bottom Line


Include return on investment and inflation
$Pi n years from now has a present value to
you today of

1 + iI
PV =
1 + i

Pi

Clearly for an investment to make sense

iR > iI
11

Costing a New Nuclear Power Plant


Use NPV to cost a new nuclear power plant
Goal: Determine the price of electricity that
Sets the NPV = 0
Gives investors a good return
The answer will have the units cents/kWhr

12

Cost Components
The cost is divided into 3 main parts

Total = Capital + O&M + Fuel


Capital: Calculated in terms of hypothetical
overnight cost
O&M: Operation and maintenance
Fuel: Uranium delivered to your door
Busbar costs: Costs at the plant
No transmission and distribution costs
13

Key Input Parameters


Plant produces Pe = 1 GWe
Takes TC = 5 years to build
Operates for TP = 40 years
Inflation rate iI = 3%
Desired return on investment iR = 12%

14

Capital Cost
Start of project: Now = 2000 year n = 0
Overnight cost: Pover = $2500M
No revenue during construction
Money invested at iR = 12%
Optimistic but simple
Cost inflates by iI = 3% per year

15

Construction Cost Table


Year

Construction
Dollars

Present
Value

2000

500 M

500 M

2001

515 M

460 M

2002

530 M

423 M

2003

546 M

389 M

2004

563 M

358 M
16

Mathematical Formula
Table results can be written as
PVCAP

Pover
=
TC

1 + iI

n=0 1 + i
Tc -1

Sum the series


Pover 1  BTC
PVCAP =
= $2129M

TC 1  B
1 + iI
B=
= 0.9196
1 + iR

17

Operations and Maintenance


O&M covers many ongoing expenses
Salaries of workers
Insurance costs
Replacement of equipment
Repair of equipment
Does not include fuel costs

18

Operating and Maintenance Costs


O&M costs are calculated similar to capital cost
One wrinkle: Costs do not occur until operation
starts in 2005
Nuclear plant data shows that O&M costs in
2000 are about

POM = $95M / yr
O&M work the same every year
19

Formula for O&M Costs


During any given year the PV of the O&M costs
are
n

1 + iI
(n )

PVOM = POM
1 + iR
The PV of the total O&M costs are
PVOM =

TC +TP -1

(n )
PVOM

n=TC

= POM

TC +TP 1

n =TC

1 + iI

1 + i

1  BTP
= POM B
= $750M
1  B
TC

20

Fuel Costs

Cost of reactor ready fuel in 2000 K F = $2000 / kg


Plant capacity factor fc = 0.85
Thermal conversion efficiency I = 0.33
Thermal energy per year
(0.85)(106 kWe ) (8760hr )
fcPeT
Wth =
=
= 2.26 1010 kWhr
(0.33)
I

6
Fuel burn rate B = 1.08 10 kWhr /kg
Yearly mass consumption

Wth
MF =
= 2.09 104 kg
B
21

Fuel Formula
Yearly cost of fuel in 2000

PF = K F M F = $41.8M / yr
PV of total fuel costs
TP


1
B
= $330M
PVF = PF BTC
1  B

22

Revenue
Revenue also starts when the plant begins
operation
Assume a return of iR = 12%
Denote the cost of electricity in 2000 by COE
measured in cents/kWhr
Each year a 1GWe plant produces
We = IWth = 74.6 108 kWhr
23

Formula for Revenue


The equivalent sales revenue in 2000 is
PR =

(COE )(We ) (COE ) fcPeT


=
= ($74.6M ) COE
100
100

The PV of the total revenue


1  BTP
PVR = PR B
= $(74.6M ) (COE ) BTC
1  B
TC

1  BTP

1  B

24

Balance the Costs


Balance the costs by setting NPV = 0

PVR = PVcons + PVOM + PVF


This gives an equation for the required COE
100
COE =
fcPeT
=

Pover 1 1  BTC

+ POM + PF

T
T
C
P

TC B 1  B

3.61

+ 1.27 + 0.56

5.4 cents /kWhr

25

Potential Pitfalls and Errors


Preceding analysis shows method
Preceding analysis highly simplified
Some other effects not accounted for
Fuel escalation due to scarcity
A carbon tax
Subsidies (e.g. wind receives 1.5
cents/kWhr)
26

More
More effects not accounted for
Tax implications income tax, depreciation
Site issues transmission and distribution
costs
Cost uncertainties interest, inflation rates
O&M uncertainties mandated new
equipment
Decommissioning costs
By-product credits heat
Different fc base load or peak load?
27

Economy of Scale

An important effect not included


Can be quantified
Basic idea bigger is better
Experience has shown that
C cap C ref
=
Pe
Pref

Typically

Pref

Pe

B x 1/ 3

28

Why?
Consider a spherical tank
Cost v Material v Surface area: C r 4QR
Power v Volume: P r (4 / 3)QR
COE scaling:

C / P r 1 / R r 1 / P 1/ 3

Conclusion:

C cap
C ref

1B

P
= e
Pref

This leads to plants with large output power


29

The Learning Curve


Another effect not included
The idea build a large number of identical units
Later units will be cheaper than initial units
Why? Experience + improved construction
Empirical evidence cost of nth unit

C n = C 1n C
ln f
C x
ln 2
f = improvement factor / unit: f  0.85 o C = 0.23
30

An example Size vs. Learning


Build a lot of small solar cells (learning curve)?
Or fewer larger solar cells (economy of scale)?
Produce a total power Pe with N units
Power per unit: pe = Pe/N
Cost of the first unit with respect to a known reference
1B

C 1 = C ref

p
ref

1B

= C ref

N ref

31

Example cont.
Cost of the nth unit
1B

C n = C 1n C

N ref
= C ref
N

n C

Total capital cost: sum over separate units


N

C cap = C n = C ref
n =1

1B

N
ref
N

n
n =1

1B

C

N
x C ref ref
N

n Cdn

1C
C ref N ref
=
N BC r N BC
1 C

If B > C we want a few large units


Its a close call need a much more accurate calculation
32

Dealing With Uncertainty


Accurate input data o accurate COE estimate
Uncertain data o error bars on COE
Risk v size of error bars
Quantify risk o calculate COE standard deviation
Several ways to calculate V, the standard deviatiation

Analytic method

Monte Carlo method

Fault tree method

We focus on analytic method


33

The Basic Goal


Assume uncertainties in multiple pieces of data
Goal: Calculate V for the overall COE including
all uncertainties
Plan:
Calculate V for a single uncertainty
Calculate V for multiple uncertainties

34

The Probability Distribution


Function
Assume we estimate the most likely cost for a given COE
contribution.
E.g. we expect the COE for fuel to cost C = 1 cent/kWhr
Assume there is a bell shaped curve around this value
The width of the curve measures the uncertainty
This curve P(C) is the probability distribution function
It is normalized so that its area is equal to unity

d
0

P (C )dC = 1

The probability is 1 that the fuel will cost something


35

The Average Value


The average value of the cost is just

C =

d
0

CP (C )dC

The normalized standard deviation is defined by


1/ 2
2
1 d

T = (C  C ) P (C )dC

C 0
A Gaussian distribution is a good model for P(C)

C C 2
)
1
(
exp

P (C ) =

2
1/ 2
(2Q ) TC
2 (TC )

36

Uncertainties

Multiple Uncertainties
Assume we know C and for each uncertain cost.
The values of C are what we used to determine COE.
Specically the total average cost is the sum of the separate costs:

C Tot =
Cj Pj (Cj )dCj =
Cj.
j

The total standard deviation is the root of quadratic sum of the


separate contributions (assuming independence of the Cj ) again
normalized to the mean:

2
j (C j j )
Tot =

j Cj
37

SE T-6 Economic Assessment

Uncertainties

Nuclear Power

An Example
Example

We need weighting - why?


Low cost entities with a large standard deviation do not have much
eect of the total deviation
Consider the following example
Ccap = 3.61, c = 0.1
CO&M = 1.27, OM = 0.15
Cfuel = 0.56, f = 0.4

38

SE T-6 Economic Assessment

Uncertainties

Nuclear Power

Example Continued
Continued

The total standard deviation is then given by

(c C cap )2 + (OM C O&M )2 + (f C fuel )2


=
C cap + C O&M + C fuel

0.130 + 0.0363 + 0.0502


=
= 0.086
5.4
Large f has a relatively small eect.
Why is the total uncertainty less than the individual ones?
(Regression to the mean)

39

SE T-6 Economic Assessment

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Toolbox 8:

Thermodynamics and Efficiency Calculations

Sustainable Energy

Energy
10/7/2010

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Thermodynamics

First law: conservation of heat plus work


Heat (Q) and work (W) are forms of
energy.
Energy can neither be created or
destroyed.

E = Q + W
Applies to energy (J, BTU, kW-hr,
) or power (W, J/s, hp)
Work comes in several forms:
PdV, electrical, mgh, kinetic,

Photo by Ian Dunster on Wikimedia Commons.

Conservation of Energy discovered in 1847 (Helmholtz, Joule, von Mayer)

Energy, mass balances.


Control Volume
Conservation of energy:

E = Q + W + Ekin nkin Ekout nkout


k

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 4.6 in Tester, Jefferson W.,
and M. Modell. Thermodynamics and its Applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1996.

Chemical species conservation:

nk = nkin nkout + rk dV dt
rk is chemical rate of formation of kth species
reactions dont change total mass or energy.

Converting heat and work

In theory various forms of work can be


interconverted with high efficiency (i.e. without
making a lot of heat):
Kinetic, mgh, electricity
In practice it is difficult to efficiently convert some
types of work: chemical/nuclear/light tend to make a
lot of heat during conversions.

Work can easily be converted to heat with high


efficiency:
Electrical resistance heaters, friction, exothermic

reactions (e.g. combustion, nuclear reactions)

Impossible to convert Heat to Work with high


efficiency:
Coal plants (~35%), nuclear plants (~35%), natural
gas plants (~50%), automobiles (~20%)

Entropy (S) and the second law of


thermodynamics
Entropy: a measure of
disorder

Entropy of the universe is


always increasing

d S

T

rev

S universe 0

Moves to more statistically


probable state

Entropy is a state function

2nd Law discovered by Rudolf Clausius in 1865

Heattowork conversions

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 14.7 in Tester, Jefferson W., and M. Modell.
Thermodynamics and its Applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Heattowork conversions

Qin

Win

Wout

Qout

A simple heat engine

Energy balance:
0 (first law)

0 (steady state)

Q& H

0 (first law)

Accumulation = In Out + Generation Consumption

0 = Q& H W&
W&

W& = Q& H

Entropy balance:
Sgen

0 (steady state)

0 (2nd
(2nd llaw)
aw)

Accumulation = In Out + Generation Consumption

Q& H &
0=
+ S gen
TH

S&gen

Q& H
=
<0
TH

Violation of the 2nd Law! Not possible. Heat engine must


reject heat, cannot convert all heat to work (since that
would reduce entropy of the universe).

A possible heat engine

Energy balance:
0 (first law)

0 (steady state)

Q& H

0 (first law)

Accumulation = In Out + Generation Consumption

0 = Q& H Q& C W&


W&

W& = Q& H Q& C

Entropy balance:
Sgen

0 (steady state)

0 (2nd
(2nd llaw)
aw)

Accumulation = In Out + Generation Consumption

Q& C

Q& H Q& C &


0=

+ S gen
TH TC

S&gen

Q& C Q& H
=

TC TH

No obvious violation of the second law.

Maximum efficiency of heat engine

heat work

Q& H

W&
&
QH

To maximize efficiency:

W&
Q& C

heat work,max

S&gen

Q& C Q& H
=

=0
TC TH

TC &
&
QC =
QH
TH

Algebra:

W&

Q& H

TC
&
&
Q

Q
H
H
&
&
QH QC
TC
TH
=
=
= 1
Q& H
Q& H
TH

Carnot efficiency

Carnot

W& max
TC

= 1
Q& H
TH

Sets upper limit on work produced from a process that


has a hot and cold reservoir
Examples: coal power plant, gas power plant, nuclear

power plant, internal combustion engine, geothermal
power plant, solar thermal power plant
Note: All temperatures must be expressed in Kelvin (or
Rankine)!
Tc usually cannot be below environmental T. TH usually
limited by materials (melting, softening, oxidizing) or by
need to avoid burning N2 in air to pollutant NO.

Free Energy and Exergy: Measures of


How Much Chemical Energy is
potentially available to do work
Usual measure of ability to do work: Free energy
G = H TS = U + PV - TS
We have some minimum temperature in our system (usually
Tcooling, ~300 K), and a min pressure (e.g. Pmin = 1 atm)
Cannot reduce entropy, so Tcooling S and Pmin

m nV not available.
Call G-TcoolingS PminV the exergy: how much chemical
energy going in to a device is available to do work.
Should also consider the lowest-chemical-energy products
(e.g. H2O and CO2), not ordinary standard states of enthalpy
(H2, O2, graphite).
A ton of room temperature air has quite a lot of thermal
energy, but none of that energy can be converted into work.

Rankine
cycle

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 14.7 in Tester, Jefferson W., and M. Modell.
Thermodynamics and its Applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Which of these Six Cases are not Feasible?


Q

Feasible

Not Feasible. Violates Second Law


Not Feasible. Violates Second Law

Q
W

Hot

Cold
Q

Feasible. Example: electric heater

Feasible. Heat Engine

Q
W

Feasible. Heat Pump


Q
W

Common heattowork engines in practice

Rankine cycle: (shown before)


Brayton cycle: combustion gases are directly
expanded across a turbine and exhausted;
Combustion Turbine CT g
gas
as p
plants
lants
Combined cycle (CC): Brayton cycle followed
by a Rankine cycle on the turbine exhaust
IGCC: CC applied to syngas produced from coal

Internal combustion engine: combustion


gases powering a piston

In most Heat Engines, Work extracted as PdV

Boiling a liquid under pressure: big volume change,


lots of W = PdV
Turbines, pistons extract mechanical work from the

pressurized gas by a nearly adiabatic expansion:

1
1
P
V
P
V
=
hi
hi
lo
lo
hi hi
lo lo
1

VhighP

nRThi
= C p / C
V

W=

1 VlowP

TV

=T V

Would like to arrange so that Plo~ 1 atm, Tlo ~ lowest


feasible temperature
Low T good for Carnot efficiency
If we exhaust the gas, dont want to waste enthalpy
T, P both drop in expansion, but at different rates

Impractical to arrange ideal Phi, Thi

Material limits on pressure, temperature


Steam cycles confined to relatively low Thi

Internal Combustion Engines, Turbines


Exhaust tends to be too hot (T

(Tlo >> ambient)


ambient)
A lot of energy carried away as waste heat in the
exhaust (LHV, exergy analysis). So despite high Thi,
these are usually much less efficient than Carnot.

Need to combine Topping and Bottoming


cycles.

Combined heat and power (CHP)

Topping

Heat and power are often


produced together to maximize
the use of otherwise wasted
heat.
Topping cycles produce
electricity from high T, and use
the waste heat for other
process needs (e.g., MIT co
gen facility)
Bottoming cycles are
processes which use medium
heat T heat to generate
electricity.

Bottoming

Q&
H

Q& H

W&el
Q&&
C
Lowtemp.
heat
need

High-

temp.

heat

need

Q& M

W&el
Q& C

Heat pumps
Move heat from cold to hot
Coefficient of performance
(COP)

Q& H

Q& H
TH
COPw =

W& TH TC

~25C
Heat
pump

~10C

Q& C

Practically, COPs are ~3

W&

3x as much heat can be


supplied as electricity supplied
Limited by power generation
efficiency

Select the More Efficient Home Heating Option

Burn NG with 90% efficiency furnace


OR
Use electricity to drive heat pump
Heat pump COP is 3
NG Power Plant Combined Cycle with 50% efficiency
Transmission and distribution losses are 10%

Air conditioning and refrigeration


Type of heat pump
Coefficient of
performance (COP)

~35C

Q& H

Q& C
Heat
pump

~25C

W&

Q& C
TC

COPs =
&
W TH TC

Can convert heat to chemical energybut still


run into Carnot limit

CH4 + 2 H2O + Q = CO2 + 4 H2


Hrxn >0 and Srxn>0
Need to supply heat at high T (to shift
equilibrium to the right)
Remove hot H2 from catalyst to freeze the
equilibrium.
When we cool hot H2 to room T, emit heat at
lower T (makes additional entropy).

Conclusions
1. Heat plus work is conserved (from the First Law).
2. Heat cant be converted to work with 100% efficiency
(from the Second Law).
3. Real processes suffer from non-idealities which
generally keep them from operating close to their
thermodynamic limits (from real life, plus the Second
Law)..
Law)
4. Chemical, nuclear energy in principle are work, but
most practical devices convert them into heat, then use
heat engines to extract PdV work: Carnot limit
5. Careful accounting for energy/exergy and the limits on
what is possible is necessary for assessing new energy
proposals. Relatively easy to do, and the results are
much more solid and exact than other aspects of the
problem like financing, economics, marketing, politics.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

International Climate Change Policy


From Copenhagen to Cancn, & Beyond

Robert
RobertN.
N.Stavins
Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, Harvard Kennedy School
Director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program
Director, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements

The Global Climate Policy Challenge

Kyoto Protocol came into force in February 2005, with first commitment
period, 2008-2012

Even if the United States had participated, the Protocols direct effects on
climate change would be very small to non-existent

Science and economics point to need for a credible international approach

Climate change is a classic global commons problem so it calls for


international (although not necessarily global) cooperation

Can the Kyoto Protocol Provide the Way Forward?

The Kyoto Protocol has been criticized because:


The costs are much greater than need be, due to exclusion of most countries,
including key emerging economies China, India, Brazil, Korea, South Africa,
Mexico (conservative estimate: costs are four times cost-effective level)
The Protocol will generate trivial climate benefits, and fails to provide any longterm solution
Short-term targets are excessively ambitious for some countries
So, the Kyoto Protocol is too little, too fast

Whether the Kyoto Protocol was a good first step or a bad first step, a next
step is needed ..

Searching for the Path Forward for Post-2012

The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements

Mission: To help identify key design elements of a


scientifically sound, economically
scientifically
economically rational, and
politically pragmatic post-2012 international policy
architecture for global climate change
Drawing upon research & ideas from leading thinkers
around the world from:

Academia (economics, political science, law, international relations)


Private industry

NGOs

Please see Aldy, Joseph E., and Robert N. Stavins. Architectures for Agreement: Addressing
Governments
Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
ISBN: 9780521692175.

Developing Insights for Post-2012 Climate Regime


35 research initiatives in Europe, United States, China, India, Japan, & Australia
Outreach with governments, NGOs, and business leaders throughout the world
Summary for Policymakers (2009) builds upon
lessons emerging from research initiatives
Complete book with 30 chapters on principles,
architectures, and design elements published by
Cambridge University Press, January 2010
Please see Aldy, Joseph E., and Robert N. Stavins. Post-Kyoto International Climate Policy:
Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press, 2009. ISBN: 9780521138000.

Potential Global Climate Policy Architectures

Targets & Timetables (as in Kyoto Protocol)


Formulas for National Emission Targets

Harmonized National Policies

Independent National Policies


Portfolio of Domestic Commitments
Linkage of National & Regional Tradable Permit Systems

Formulas for National Emission Targets


Core: Key principles lead to design of targets

Formula used to set national emission caps to 2100 using three key elements

Progressivity factor: richer countries make more severe cuts

Latecomer factor: nations that did not achieve targets under Kyoto make gradual
emission cuts to account for post-1990 emissions

Equalization factor: moves targets of all countries in direction of global average per
capita emissions

FFormulas
rmu as
l ass
assign
gn
i quant
quantitative
tat
i ve
i em
emission
ss
i on
i caps
capstotocountr
countries

es
i
to 2100

Developing countries are not asked to bear any cost in early

years

Developing countries are not asked to make any sacrifice

different from sacrifices of developed countries, accounting

for differences in income

No countries have targets costing more than 1% of GDP

Every country contributes no more than its fair share

Please see:
Frankel, Jeffrey. "An Elaborated Proposal for
Global Climate Policy Architecture: Specific
Formulas and Emission Targets for All Countries
in All Decades." Discussion Paper 08-08,
Harvard Project on International Climate
Agreements, October 2008.

Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Each participating nation registers to abide by its domestic climate commitments

Australia, EU, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and U.S. announced domestic
commitments or plans prior to Copenhagen (December 2009)
Also known as pledge & review or schedules
Support

Support
prior to Copenhagen from a diverse set of counties,
including Australia, India, and the United States

But can this bring about sufficient stringency?


No

Can it be an effective bridge to further steps?


Yes

Please see Stavins, Robert N. "A Portfolio of Domestic Commitments: Implementing


Common but Differentiated Responsibilities." Policy Brief, Harvard Project on International
Climate Agreements, October 19, 2009.

Linkage of National & Regional Tradable Permit Systems


Cap-and-trade systems are preferred approach in many countries and regions
Linking these cap-and-trade systems reduces overall costs, market power, and price
volatility
But linking causes automatic propagation of cost-containment design elements: banking,
borrowing, and safety valve
Therefore, advance harmonization required
Please see

The Emerging International Regime


The Emerging International Regime
If cap-and-trade systems link with common emission
reduction-credit system, such as CDM, the cap-and-trade

systems are indirectly linked

Jaffe, Judson, and Robert N. Stavins.


"Linkage of Tradable Permit Systems
in International Climate Policy Architecture."
Discussion Paper 08-07, Harvard Project
on International Climate Agreements, September 2008.

All the benefits of linking are achieved cost savings, etc.


But propagation of design elements across systems greatly

diminished

May be evolving as part of de facto post-Kyoto architecture

Placing COP 15 Copenhagen in Perspective

Clich about American baseball season applies to international climate change


policy: its a marathon, not a sprint
Scientifically: stock, not flow environmental problem
Economically: cost-effective path is gradual ramp-up in target severity (to avoid
unnecessary capital-stock obsolescence)
- term price
Economically:
Economically: technological
technological change
change is
is key,
key, hence
hence llong
ong-term
pricesignals
signals
Administratively: creation of durable international institutions is essential

International climate negotiations will be an ongoing process much like trade


talks not a single task with a clear end-point.
Bottom-Line: sensible goal for Copenhagen was progress on sound foundation
for meaningful long-term action, not some notion of immediate success
10

What actually happened in Copenhagen?

Organizational failure (47,000 advance credentials capacity of 15,000)


Lack of consensus
But last-minute, direct negotiations among key national leaders
Leaders of Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the United States
Virtually unprecedented in international negotiations

Saved COP-15 from complete collapse


Produced a significant political framework, the Copenhagen Accord

Accord departs from Kyoto Protocol in two important ways:


(1) expands coalition of meaningful commitments to include all major emitters
(2) extends time-frame of action
11

The Copenhagen Accord


The good news
Provides for real cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by all major emitters
Establishes a transparent framework for evaluating countries performance
against their commitments
Initiates a flow of resources to help poor, vulnerable nations carry out both
mitigation and adaptation
Submissions
Submissions received
received from
rom 140+
140+ parties,
parties, which
which

account for >80% of 2006 global emissions

The bad news


Not on track for 450 ppm (2o C)
Annex I/non-Annex I distinction remains, in words

(but blurred in action)

Future of UNFCCC threatened (?)


12

Another Outcome of Copenhagen:

Thinking About Institutions for Climate Governance

Copenhagen illustrated concerns with process under United Nations


(Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC)
Size: 194 countries,
countries, when 20 account for about 80% of g
global
lobal emissions

UN culture & process seems to polarize debate: developed vs

developing world

UNFCCC de facto voting rule: unanimity required


Lack of consensus behind Copenhagen Accord due to objections of 6 of
194 countries (none major emitters)

13

Alternative Institutions for Climate Governance

Major Economies Forum 80% of global emissions; initiated & led by U.S.
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States

G20 finance ministers; since 1999; have met on climate change


Countries of Major Economies Forum plus Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Turkey

Other multilateral (C30); bilateral, including China-U.S.


Other venues for specific aspects example: World Bank & finance
UNFCCC too soon for obituaries
Kyoto Protocol continues through 2012
International legitimacy, and substantial constituency

In the meantime, U.S. (& Chinese) domestic policy action is critical ..


14

Major Options for Climate Policy in the United States

Federal Policy
Pricing Instruments
Cap-and-Trade
Carbon Taxes

Other Instruments
t
Regulation
Regulation Under
Unde
the
he Clean
Clean Air
Air Act
Act
Energy Policies Not Targeted Exclusively at Climate Change
Public Nuisance Litigation
NIMBY and Other Interventions to Block Permits

Sub-National Policy
Regional, State, & Local Policies
National Linkage of Sub-National Policies
15

National Carbon-Pricing Policy


Most economists & other policy analysts favor this approach. Why?
1. No other feasible approach can provide truly meaningful emissions

reductions (such as an 80% cut in national CO2 emissions by 2050)

2. Its the least costly approach in short term (heterogeneous abatement costs)

3. Its the least costly approach in the long term (incentive for carbon-friendly
technological change)
4. Its a necessary but not sufficient component of sensible climate policy

4.
policy

But, carbon-pricing is a hot-button political issue


It makes the costs transparent (unlike conventional policy instruments), and


is easily associated with the T-word; indeed, in Washington, cap-and-trade
has been demonized as cap-and-tax

A meaningful, national, economy-wide carbon-pricing policy is unlikely to


be enacted before 2013

Does that mean there will be no Federal climate policy? No.

16

Cost-Effective Economy-Wide Climate Policy


Achieves Very Different Reductions from Different Sectors

from
Reduction in Emissions fro
m Baseline Level

Percent Reduction in CO2 Emissions by Sector in 2030 Under an Economy-Wide


Emissions Cap Yielding a $35/ton Allowance Price in 2030 (EIA)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Transportation Electric Power Economy-Wide

Anticipated Economic Impacts of U.S. Climate Policy

Cumulative cost, 2012-2030 0.3% to 0.9% of GDP


Oil market impacts relatively small
Essentially a tax on coal: coal price increases 280% relative to BAU (2030)
Coal natural gas, then nuclear & renewables for electricity generation
Impact on gasoline price: increase of 9% (35/gal) relative to BAU (2030)

Gasoline demand: 5% fall below BAU by 2030


Electricity sector accounts for 80%-90% of emissions reductions
Impacts on transportation sector & oil/heating relatively small (cost-effective)
Oil imports: 9% decrease below BAU by 2030
But much more costly if other non-carbon-pricing options are pursued .
18

Other Federal Regulations in Place or On the Way


U.S. Supreme Court decision, EPA endangerment finding, & CAA

Mobile source standards


Stationary sources (January 2, 2011, with or without tailoring rule)

Air pollution policies for correlated pollutants under CAA


Five rules in the regulatory pipeline SOx, NOx, Hg, & PM
Could shut some coal plants (w/o any CO2 requirements)

Energy Policies (variety of standards & subsidies, not targeted at CO2)


National renewable electricity standard
Federal financing for clean energy projects
Energy efficiency measures
19

Other Legal Mechanisms


Public Nuisance Litigation
Lawsuits pursuing injunctive relief and/or damages
In flux recent court decisions

Other Interventions
Intended to block permits for new fossil energy investments
Power plants
Transmission lines

Some NIMBY, some strategic

But, with delay in Congressional action on carbon-pricing,


attention is increasingly turning to the states
20

Sub-National Climate Policies


Regional, state, & local policies continue to emerge
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
Californias Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
Western Climate Initiative
In fact, more than half of 50 states are contemplating, developing, or
implementing climate policies

In presence of Federal policy, .


Will state efforts achieve their objectives?
Will state efforts be cost-effective?
Answer: interactions can be problematic, benign, or positive,
depending on relative scope and stringency, and policy instruments used
(Goulder & Stavins, NBER Working Paper 16123, June 2010)
21

U.S. Political Timing:

A Challenge for the International Process

Recession (and unemployment)


Other domestic policy priorities: economic stimulus, health care, financial

regulation, and the Gulf oil spill

Public perceptions

perceptions

Congressional deliberation, difficult politics, and challenging numbers


U.S. mid-term elections (November, 2010) work against bipartisanship, and
make it more difficult to vote to raise energy prices
So, COP-16 in Cancn in December will surely be more enjoyable than COP
15 in Copenhagen, but can it be more productive?
Yes .
22

Defining Success at COP-16

1. Embrace parallel processes MEF, G20, C30 as input to UNFCCC process

2. Consolidate 3 tracks KP, LCA, & CA to 2 tracks (or even 1 track!)


KP build on key elements, including common but differentiated
responsibilities, but move beyond simplistic Annex I/non-Annex I distinction
Develop better methods for comparing targets and actions
Move forward with financing plans in CA

3.

Focus on productive steps within specific narrow agreements, such as REDD

4.

Develop sensible expectations and effective plans


Negotiations are an ongoing process, not a single task with a clear end-point

The most sensible goal for Cancn is not some notion of immediate triumph, but
progress on sound foundation for meaningful long-term action.
23

For More Information


Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements
www.belfercenter.org/climate

Harvard Environmental Economics Program


www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/heep/

www.stavins.com

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

2.650J/10.291J/22.081J

2.650J/10.291J/22.081J

INTRODUCTION TO

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.

NUCLEAR ENERGY
BASICS AND STATUS

GOALS

To Understand the Situation and Prospects of the Nuclear Power


Enterprise Within the Overall Energy Context

Domestically

Internationally

NUCLEAR POWER

TECHNOLOGIES

GOALS OF NUCLEAR POWER DISCUSSION: To Answer the


Following Questions
Who used nuclear power today?

Answer: Most industrialized countries.


Who is likely to use nuclear power in the future?

Answer: East Asian and developing countries, countries wanting energy

supply
supply diversity.

diversity.
What are the important nuclear power technologies
Today? Answer: LWRs pressurized and boiling water reactors.
Future? Answer: Maybe LWRs near term, gas-cooled reactors
medium term, breeder reactors long term.
How could nuclear power relieve global warming?
Answer: Most likely with large-scale, high-temperature breeder reactors.
What are the future prospects for nuclear power?
Answer: That depends upon how concerned people are about the
problems of other energy technologies and what nuclear power can
produce in addition to electricity.

TYPES OF STEAM-ELECTRIC
GENERATING PLANTS
Turbine
Condenser

Fire

Water

Nuclear BWR
Steam

Steam

Turbine
Steam
generator

Reactor

Pump

Pump

Fossil fuel

Fuel

Steam

Fuel

Pump

Pump

Boiler

Generator

Condenser

Steam
Water

Fuel

Turbine

Generator

Liquid sodium

Generator

Condenser

Fuel

Turbine
Steam
generator

Condenser
Steam

Steam

Pump

Water

Pump
Reactor

Intermediate
heat exchanger

Pump

Water

Pump

Pump

Pump

Nuclear PWR

Generator

Nuclear LMFBR
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

PWR FUEL ASSEMBLY AND CUTAWAY


OF OXIDE FUEL FOR COMMERCIAL
LWR POWER PLANTS

A.V. Nero, Jr., A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors, 1979.

Image by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee.

RANGE OF RADIATION IN
TISSUE
Particle Name
Fission Product

Range (m)
10-6

Particle Type and Charge


Fragment of Nucleus

10-4 10-5

10-3

Helium Nucleus++,
2 protons, 2 neutrons
ElectronElectron

0.1 10

Photon0

0.1 10

Neutron0

TRANSMUTATION
Stable Isotope
Am

Neutron
n

New Isotope

Am+1
6

FISSION
n+

235

U 236 U 2 Fission Products


+ (2.5)n
+6
+ 10
+ neutrinos
+ kinetic energy ( 200 MeV)

TWO REPRESENTATIVE FISSION


PRODUCT DECAY CHAINS*

Flowchart of decay chains for Br-90 and Xe-143 removed due to copyright restrictions.

ENERGY BALANCE FOR AN

AVERAGE FISSION

Kinetic energy of fission fragments (2 nuclei: A 95,


A 140)

6 1

Prompt rays (5 rays)


Beta decay of fragments (7

MeV
165 5

rays)

Neutrinos related to above

8 1
1.5
.5

12 2.5

Gamma rays related to above (7 rays)

6 1

Kinetic energy of neutrons (2 to 3 neutrons)

NEUTRONIC PROPERTIES OF

NUCLEAR FUELS

NEUTRON ENERGIES
MeV
THERMAL
Parameter U233
U235
U233
Pu239
U235
0.123 0.2509 0.38
0.1
0.15
2.226
2.50

1.943
2.43

2.085
2.91

2.91

2.45
2.7

2.3
2.65

Pu239
0.1
2.7
3.0

n's produced
captures
n's produced
=
,
; =
; =
1+ absorption
fissions
fission
Conversion Reactions:

U 238 + n U 239 + Np 239 + Pu 239 +


Th 232 + n Th 233 + Pa 233 + U 233 +
10

SELF-SUSTAINED CHAIN

REACTION

1 neutron for subsequent


fission, and
1 neutron + U 235 neutrons
( -1) neutrons for leakage,
parasitic absorption, and

conversion
Necessary Condition for Breeding: for each fissile nucleus consumed another is
produced via conversion of fertile material, e.g., a U235 nuclear is consumed
and replaced by production of a new Pu239 nucleus, via the reaction

n + U 238 U 239 +
Np 239 + +
Pu 239 + +
Conversion Ratio

Number of new fissile neuclei produced as a result


of fission of a single nucleus
1 for breeding
Conversion Ratio :
< for burning
11

FUNDAMENTAL SOURCES OF

ENERGY USED BY DIFFERENT

ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES

Energy Source

Fundamental Nuclear Energy Source

Solar

Gravitationally confined solar fusion reactions


transmitted via photons

Fossil Fuels

Gravitationally confined solar fusion reactions

transmitted via photons and stored in biomass


biomass

Geothermal

Naturally-occurring radioactive decays of


materials within the Earth and Gravitational Work

Tidal

Nuclear reactions following the Big Bang


Sustaining Current Gravitational Work

Nuclear Fission

Neutron-induced fission reactions of heavy nuclei

Nuclear Fusion

Nuclear fusion reactions of light nuclei


12

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

OF ENERGY SOURCES

FUEL
PHASE

Coal

Petroleum

Extraction

Mining
Accidents
Lung Damage

Drilling-Spills
(off-shore)

Refining

Refuse Piles

Water Pollu
tion

Transportation Collision

Natural Gas
Drilling

--

Nuclear
Mining
Accidents
Lung Damage
Milling Tails

Hydro
Construction

Solar
Terrestrial Solar Power
Tower
Photovoltaic
Mining
Accidents

Wind

--

--

Fusion

Geothermal

He, H , Li
Production

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

Low Efficiency

--

--

H2S

Spills

Pipeline
Explosion

--

--

On-Site
Thermal

High
Efficiency

High
Efficiency

High
Efficiency

Low Efficiency

--

Air

Particulates
SO2, NOx

SO2, NOx

NOx

BWR Radia
tion Releases

--

Water

Water Treat
ment Chemi
cals

Water Treat
ment Chemi
cals

Water Treat
ment Chemi
cals

Water Treat
ment Chemi
cals

Destroys Prior
Water Treat
Ecosystems

ment Chemi
cals

Water Treat
ment Chemi
cals

Aesthetic

Large Plant
Transmission
Lines

Large Plant
Transmission
Lines

Large Plant
Transmission
Lines

Small Plant
Transmission
Lines

Small Plant
Transmission
Lines

Poor
Large Area

Wastes

Ash, Slag

Ash

Sprecial
Problems
Major
Accident

--

Mining

--

Oil Spill

Low Efficiency Ecosystem


Ecosystem
Change
Change
--

Poor
Large Area

--

--

Spent Fuel
Transportation
Reprocessing
Waste Storage

--

Spent Cells

--

--

--

--

Construction
Accidents

--

Fire

--

Pipeline
Explosion

Reactor
Cooling

Dam Failure

--

Large Area
Large Towers
Noise?
--

Bird, Human
Injuries
--

Tritium in
Brine in
Cooling Water Streams
Small Area

Poor
Large Area

Irradiated Struc Cool Brine


tural Material

Occupational
Radiation
Doses

--

Tritium
Release

--

13

PUBLIC MOOD MORE FAVORABLE

TO NUCLEAR POWER

Global Warming Concerns

Popular belief

IPCC reports and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

Fossil fuel costs/supply security

Middle-East Wars
Better Nuclear Power Technology Mainly Concerning Safety
Good Operational Record of Existing Nuclear Plants

14

WORLD ELECTRICITY
GENERATION
World Electricity Generation

Nuclear14.7%

Coal 40.8%

Oil 5.8%

Hydro 16.4%

Gas 20%

Other 2.3%

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: OECD/IEA 2006.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

15

INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR

POWER GROWTH End of 2010

441 Units Operating in 30 Countries, with 376,000 MWe of total


capacity

7 New Units Expected to Start Up in 2010


60 New Units Under Construction, 11 Started in 2009
150 New
New Units
Units Planned
Planned
340 New Units Proposed
China Plans 50 Units Over Next 10 Years
UK White Paper Encourages New Nuclear Power Plants (1/08)
New Units in South Korea, China, Finland, France, India, Japan,
Russiamost growth is in Asia

16

FUEL FOR ELECTRICITY


GENERATION 2006
Fuel for Electricity Generation 2006

100

TWh:

2864

407

1073

617

4277

3569

991

398

50

China

S.Korea Japan Canada

USA

OECD Europe

Russia UK

Width of each bar indicative of gross power production


Nuclear

Oil

Gas

Coal

Hydro & others

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: OECD/IEA Electricity Information 2007.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

17

NUCLEAR POWER STATUS


AROUND THE WORLD
Number of Reactors in Operation Worldwide as of Oct. 1, 2010

United States of America


France
Japan
Russian Federation
Korea, Republic of
India
United Kingdom
Canada
Germany
Ukraine
China
Sweden
Spain
Belgium
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Finland
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Mexico
Pakistan
Romania
South Africa
Armenia
Netherlands
Slovenia

6
5
4
4
4

8
7

10

21
19
19
18
17
15
13

54

32

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1

104

58

World Total: 441 Reactor units


20

40

60

80

100

Note: Long-term shutdown units (5) are not counted

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm

18

NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY
PRODUCTION AND SHARE OF TOTAL
ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
Nuclear Electricity Production and Share of Total Electricity Production

2500

16
14

2000

12
1500

10
8

1000

6
4

500

09
20

07
20

05
20

03
20

01
20

99
19

97
19

95
19

93
19

91
19

89
19

87
19

85
19

83
19

81
19

79
19

77
19

75
19

73
19

71

19

Nuclear Share (%) - line

18

Nuclear Electricity Production


(TWh) - bar

3000

20

Year
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from the World Nuclear Association.

19

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY
GENERATION 2007
Nuclear Electricity Generation 2007

70

Bar width is indicative of the amount of electricity in each country

60
50
40
30
20

China

Brazil
Pakistan

UK
Canada
Romania
Argentina
South Africa
Mexico
Netherlands
India

Russia

Spain

USA

Germany

Japan

Bulgaria
Finland

Slovakia
Belgium
Ukraine
Sweden
Armenia
Switzerland
Slovenia
Hungary
South Korea

Lithuania

Czech Republic

10
France

Nuclear electricity generation % (World 15%)

80

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from the World Nuclear Association.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

20

NUCLEAR ENERGY
Share of Total Electricity Production in OECD Countries, 2009
80

75.1

75
70
65
60
55

51.7

50

43.5

France

Slovak Republic

Belgium

Hungary

Switzerland

Sweden

Czech Republic

Korea

Finland

Japan

22.0

25.1 25.3
18.8

OECD Pacific

22.8

Germany

20.2

United States

17.5 17.9

United Kingdom

4.4

Canada

3.2

Mexico

10
5

14.8

Spain

25
20
15

OECD Europe

29.2

37.4
34.7 35.8

OECD

35
30

33.1

38.2

OECD America

45
40

Netherlands

54.4

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: OECD.

Source: http://www.oecd.org, Nuclear Energy Data, 2010

21

EXISTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

(Approximately 441 Worldwide)

Country
France
Belgium
Bulgaria
S. Korea
Switzerland
Japan
UK
USA
Russia
S. Africa
Netherlands
China

Fraction of
Electricity
75.2
51.7
35.9
34.8
39.5
28.9
17.9
20.2
17.8
4.8
3.7
1.9

Units Under
Construction
1
0
0
6
0
2
0
1
10
0
0
23

Operating Units
59
7
2
21
5
55
19
104
32
2
1
13

Sources: world-nuclear.org & euronuclear.org, 10/10

22

SUMMARY OF TYPES OF POWER

REACTORS USED WORLDWIDE

Coolant
Temperature
Type
Coolant
Moderator
(C)
Deployment
Pressurized
Light Water Light Water
300
Most nuclear
Water (PWR)
countries

Current
Population
265

Boiling Water Light Water Light Water


(BWR)

300

Most nuclear
countries

94

RBMK

Light
Lig ht Water

Graphite
Graphite

300

Former USSR*

16

Pressurized
Heavy Water
(PHWR)

Heavy
Water

Heavy
Water

300

Canada, Korea,
China, Argentina,
India, Pakistan

44

Gas-Cooled
(GCR)

Carbon
Dioxide,
Helium

Graphite

600

UK, Russia

18

None

600

France, UK, Japan,


Russia; former
USSR, China and
India

Liquid MetalSodium,
Cooled
Lead, Lead(LMFBR)
Bismuth
*Union of Soviet Socialists Republics

23

French Electricity Output


Coal
Oil
Nuclear
Hydro
Other

500

103 GWh

400

300

200

100

0
1994

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: International Energy Agency database.

INTERNATIONAL TRENDS

Deregulation originated in the United Kingdom, went well until


natural gas prices fell ( 2002); British Energy was near
bankruptcy and depended upon government loans

Deregulation is also being tried in United States, Canada, Chile,

Japan, South Korea, Australia, and European Community


Community

Consolidation among nuclear equipment vendors is occurring:


Areva, Siemens, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd/Toshiba, General
Electric, Hitachi, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries

New reactor manufacturers from S. Korea, Russia, perhaps China


next, entering international competition
25

REGIONAL FACTORS
EUROPE

Electricit de France is a big exporter and owner

Fifth Finnish nuclear unit (EPR) plant is proceeding

proceeding

Nuclear power shutdowns have been mandated in Sweden,


Germany and Belgium; now being revoked or reconsidered

AFRICA

South Africa was developing the pebble bed modular reactor

(PBMR), has shut down the project

26

REGIONAL FACTORS,

continued

ASIA
China has 9 units under construction, 41 more planned

Japan has 11 units planned and 2 units under construction; is in


recovery from 7 units of TEPCO taken off-line following 2007
earthquake and are slowly returned to service

South Korea has privatized KEPCO, is planning a new series of


LWRs, has 6 units under construction and two planned

Taiwan is completing 2 BWRs; nothing is planned beyond them

27

EMERGING NUCLEAR

ENERGY COUNTRIES

45 Countries Considering New Nuclear Power Programs; some can be


classified according to how far their plans have progressed
Iran: Power reactors under construction
UAE, Turkey: Contract signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure welldeveloped
Vietnam, Jordan, Italy: Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure
developing
Thailand,
Thailand, Indonesia,
Indonesia, Egypt,
Egypt, Kazakhstan,
Kazakhstan, Poland,
Poland, Belarus, Lithuania: WellWell
developed plans but commitment pending
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nigeria, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Morocco, Kuwait,
Chile: Developing plans
Namibia, Kenya, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, Albania, Serbia,
Estonia & Latvia, Libya, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka: Discussion as
serious policy option
Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Norway, Ireland: Officially not a policy
option at present

28

WORLD NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY


NET GENERATION

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2009; 29


http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/inter.html

WORLD CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS


FROM ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2009; 30


http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/inter.html

ENERGY FLOW, 2009 (Quadrillion Btu)

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2009; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram1.html 31

ELECTRICITY FLOW, 2009 (Quadrillion Btu)

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2009; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/diagram5.html 32

ELECTRICITY NET GENERATION,


TOTAL (ALL SECTORS)

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2009; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/elect.html 33

NUCLEAR GENERATING
UNITS

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html 34

NUCLEAR GENERATING UNITS

Energy Information Administration / Annual Energy Review 2007; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/nuclear.html 35

HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED US


NUCLEAR ELECTRIC GENERATION
CAPACITY, 1960-2055

Source: DOE-ONEST (c. 1997).

Fig. 5.3 in "Report to the President on Federal Energy Research and Development for the 21st Century."
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Energy Research and Development, November 1997.

36

EXISTING USA

NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

Utilities

Power capacity

increases continuing

Operating record is

good but not improving

NRC Office of New Reactors

Reactor oversight process


General Electric
continues in force

Risk-informed regulation

has stalled

Restructuring of economic 17 new plant licenses under

regulation has stalled

Vendors

application for 28 reactors


reactors

In alliancewith Hitachi
Nuclear operations are

now in North Carolina

ESBWR cancelled

Westinghouse
Consolidation has slowed Three new plants being built purchasedby
Toshiba
n

Exelon-PSEG merger
failed
Constellation-FPL
merger failed

Plant purchaseshave
stopped

Restructuring of economic
regulation has stalled

(who also make


BWRs)

Areva in alliance with


Constellation Energy,
EDF, Mitsubishi in
UniStar

Mitsubishi entering US
market

37

OTHER PROJECTS

Yucca Mountain HLW Repository (in Nevada)


License application submitted 2008, effectively withdrawn 2010
Earliest opening 2020
Will federal government take back spent fuel?
Several successful utility lawsuits
Private Fuel Storage Interim Facility (in Utah) approved

Transportation
Transportation access blocked
blocked

Louisiana Enrichment Services (in New Mexico)


Urenco, Areva
U.S. Enrichment Corp. (USEC) (in Ohio)
Mixed Oxide (UO2, PuO2) Fuel Fabrication Plant (in Savannah River, South
Carolina)

38

PLAUSIBLE TRENDS IN REACTOR

TECHNOLOGY EVOLUTION

CURRENT/SHORT TERM
Light Water Reactors (LWRs)
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)
Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)

Heavy
(PHWR)

Heavy Water Reactor (PH


WR)
Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (CANDU)
INTERMEDIATE TERM (>20 years)
Brayton Cycle Gas (He or CO2) Cooled Reactor (GCR-GT)
LONG TERM (>50 years)
Fast Breeder (238U 239Pu-based)
Thermal Breeder (232Th 233U-based)
39

MHTGR SIDE-BY-SIDE ARRANGEMENT


WITH PRISMATIC FUEL

40

Image by Emoscopes on Wikimedia Commons.

FACTORS LIKELY TO AFFECT

FUTURE USE OF NUCLEAR POWER

Operational Safety Record


Utility, Critical Elite, Public, Investor Attitudes
End of Cold War
Degree of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Nuclear Waste Disposal Success
Global Warming and Air Pollution Worries
Ability of Nuclear Power to Produce More
than Electricity

41

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Fossil Fuels I

Sustainable Energy

Fall 2010

10/14/2010

Scope of this Session


Cover the major power cycles for
conversion of fossil fuels to electricity
Steam
Steam Cycles
Steam Turbines
Brayton Cycle
Gas Turbines
Combined Cycles

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Understanding Steam Cycles


Start with Carnot efficiency as upper limit

Use reality to chip away at the efficiency

Use tricks to maximize efficiency

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Carnot Efficiency

TH

Carnot

W& max
TC

= 1
Q& H
TH

W = Area
TC

Assumes QH is all available at TH


Assumes QC is all available at TC
Assumes Reversibility
No temperature driving force on heat exchangers
No pressure drops in exchangers or pipes
No entropy losses on turbines or pumps

For TH=1800 K, TC=300 K, Carnot=83%


4
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Reality 1

Heat Source Temperature not Constant

Heat source may start at TH but the temperature


drops as heat is delivered
Heat is maximized if hot medium exits at TC
Maximum
Maximum work
work determined
determined by
by integrating
integrating over
this temperature profile (assume constant Cp)

T
H

* Carnot
=
1
ln

T
C

T
H

T
C

For TH=1800 K, TC=300 K, *Carnot=64%


Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Efficiency

Carnot & Carnot* Efficiency for Range of Temperature Ratios


100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Carnot

Carnot*

TH/TC

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Rankine

cycle

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 14.7 in Tester, Jefferson W., and
M. Modell. Thermodynamics and its Applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Reality 2
Working Fluid Phase Envelope Matters
400

Steam Example:
350
300

Boil

B
Expand

250

T 200
150
100

A
Pump

Condense

TH = 264 C
TC = 100 C
carnot = 31%
ideal = 27%

C/D

50
0
S
8
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Reality 3
Ambient Pressure not Hard Limit For Closed Cycles
400

Vacuum Example:

350

TH = 264 C
TC = 33 C
B carnot = 43%
ideal = 37%

300

Boil
250

Expand

T 200
150
100

A
50 Pump
0

Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar C/D

S
9
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Reality 4
Real Pumps and Turbines have Entropy Losses
400

Losses Example:

turbine = 90%
pump = 65%

350
300

Boil

250

Expand

T 200
150
100

A
50 Pump
0

Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar

carnot = 43%
ideal = 37%
real = 33%

C/D

S
10
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Reality 5
Expanding into Two-Phase Region is a Problem
400
350
300

Boil

250

Expand

T 200
150
100

A
50 Pump
0

Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar C/D

Turbine Exit Vapor Fraction is only 73%


Turbine Reality:
Vapor fraction must exceed 90%
Efficiency diminished by condensation in turbine
11
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Superheat Cycles
Superheat Steam to Keep Turbine Relatively Dry
400

Superheat Example:

350

Superheat=
+300 C
TH = 564 C
TC = 33 C
VaporFrac = 90%
carnot = 63%
real = 36%

Boil
250

T 200
150

Expand

300

100

A
50 Pump
0

Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar

S
12
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Reheat Cycles

Reheat between Turbines More Power & Dry Turbines

BOILER

HPT

LPT

PUMP
REHEAT

CONDENSE

13
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Reheat Cycles
Reheat between Turbines  More Power & Dry Turbines
400

Reheat Example:

350
300

Boil
250

T 200
150

Superheat=
+150 C
TH = 414 C
TC = 33 C
VaporFrac = 97%
carnot = 55%
real = 36%

100

A
50 Pump
0

Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar

S
14
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Regenerative Cycles
Preheat with lower quality heat
Extract steam from turbines
Feedwater heaters
Open (Direct contact)
Closed (Indirect)

Regeneration Example:
Regeneration
Example:

BOILER

Extraction Factor = 12%


HPT

LPT

carnot = 55%
real = 37%

HPPUMP
REHEAT

LPPUMP

CONDENSE

OPEN

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

15

Real Steam Cycles

Multiple steam pressure levels


Multiple reheats
Multiple extractions for feedwater heating
Deaerator for oxygen removal
Best performance at steam pressures > Pc
Maximum steam temperature: ~ 600C
Economizer to recover heat from flue gas
Fuel utilization is key metric for fossil fuel power

Fuel Utilization

W
=
FuelFlow LHV

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

16

Steam Rankine Cycle Summary

Fuel flexible: works well with coal and other dirty


fuels (closed cycle)
Workhorse for nuclear and most solar thermal
Low flow rate: thanks to high heat of vaporization


Low pumping power
But
Limited by maximum steam temperatures due to

material of construction constraints

High inertia: good for base load, not for load following
Requires cooling: a water hog for many power plants

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

17

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 14.5 in Tester, Jefferson W., and
M. Modell. Thermodynamics and its Applications. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Siemens SST-500

Photo of a Siemens SST-500 steam turbine removed due to copyright restrictions.

Power output: up to 100 MW


Rotational speed: up to 15,000 rpm
Inlet steam pressure: up to 30 bar
Inlet steam temperature: up to 400 C
Bleeds: up to 2, at various pressure levels
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

19

Brayton Cycle

Brayton Cycle = Rankine Cycle Boiling Condensation

20
Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Evolution of Turbine Blade Technology

Rotor inlet gas temperature - (oF)

Film/convection
Advanced cooling
4200
Single crystal
material family

3800
Convection

3400
3000

Turbine material
melt temperatures

Solid

2600
2200
1800

0.2

0.4

0.6

Cooling effectiveness

0.8

1.0

Tgas - Tmetal
Tgas - Tcoolant

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Pratt & Whitney.

Source: MIT Unified Engineering 16.003/16.004


Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

22

Siemens Gas Turbine SGT5-8000H

Photo of a Siemens SGT5-8000H gas turbine removed due to copyright restrictions.

Power Output: 375 MW

Efficiency: 40%

Pressure Ratio: 19.2

Compression Stages: 13

Turbine Stages: 4

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

23

Brayton with Intercooling, Reheat and Regeneration

Images removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 9-43 and 9-44
in engel, Yunus A., and Michael A. Boles. Thermodynamics: An Engineering
Approach. 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2006. ISBN: 9780072884951.

24

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

Gas Turbine Advantages

Operate at high temperature Utilize fossil fuel combustion

Start, stop, turn-down easily Load following and peaking

Compact and easy to operate

Operate at low pressures relative to steam turbines


Internal combustion does not require heat transfer equipment

Not as vulnerable to corrosion as steam turbines

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

25

Gas Turbine Disadvantages

Open cycle limits exhaust pressure to ambient pressure


Exhaust temperature well above ambient
Efficiency limited by high compression work

Cannot use dirty fuels (particulate & sulfur damage blades)

Exhaust temperature well above ambient

Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

26

Combined Cycle

Most common combined cycle = Brayton + Rankine

Efficiency 60%

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see


Fig. 7 in Langston, Lee S., and George Opdyke, Jr.
"Introduction to Gas Turbines for Non-Engineers."
Global Gas Turbine News 37 (1997).
Figure at right from U.S. Department of Energy.

Sources: MIT Unified Engineering [Lee Langston]; US Department of Energy


Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

27

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

The
Th
e Dominant
Dominant Piece ofthe
Energy System: Fossil Fuel
elss

Prof. William Green


MIT Dept. ofChem. Eng.
Sustainable Energy class, Fallll 2010
2010

Fossil Fuels DOMINANT for last 100 years

EJ/year

World primary energy supply 1850-2000


500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

1 EJ = 1018J = 0.948 Quads

Gas
Oil
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro +
Biomass

1850 1875 1900 1925 1950 1975 2000


Year
We live in a fossil-fuel dominated world (80+% of supply in 2000)
E.M Drake

US Energy System 2002: consume 1020J/yr, ~85% fossil

U.S. consumption per capita ~60% higher than most developed countries

Fossil Fuels Basics

Dig carbon out of the ground, burn it to make heat + CO2.


Some heat used directly to heat buildings, reactors.
M
Most
ost heat used in engines, to make electricity or transportatio
transportation
n

Electricity, transport from burning fuel in heat engines.


Electricity,
engines.
A simple overall chemical reaction:
reaction:
CH2x

(1+x/2) O2 CO2 + x H2O + he


heat
h
eat
at
2
2x
x + (1+x/2)

xx~2
~2 for natural gas, x~1 for oil, x~0.5 for coal
coal

Almost always (4+2x) N2 molecules
molecules co
come
me in
in wi
with
th th
the O2 , go out
ut
with the CO2

70 to 150 kg of CO2 emit
emitte
ted per
er GJ
GJ of
of he
heat
at..

Fossil fuels, created over 108 ye


year
ars by con
onve
vers
rsio
ion of pla
lant
nt
material in sediments, will probably be mostly consumed in
<103 ye
year
ars.
s.

Energy Problem has many Aspects

Sufficient Supply?
Will we exhaust conventional petroleum & gas this century?
Energy supply system robust to natural disasters?

Price
P
rice / Affordability
Affordability
At current prices, energy is u
un
na
affffo
orrd
da
ab
blle
e to
to ma
many
ny pe
peop
ople
le..

IIff prices double, world economy crashes!


crashes!
Most options significant
significantly
significantl
lyy in
incr
crea
ease
se co
cost
st of
of en
ener
ergy
gy.
y.

Security
Securit
y
M
Most
ost energy resources remote from population centers.
centers.

B
Blockades,
lockades, embargos, upheavals do disrupt supply.
supply.
D
Diversion
iversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons?
weapons?

Environmental
E
nvironmental & Health Problems
Problems
LLocal
ocal pollution from energy a major health issue.
issue.
S
Significant
ignificant Water use and Land use issues
issues
Global Climate Change from CO2

Why & Why Not use Fossil Fuels?

Finite but Very Large Amount of Fossil Fuel


We are definitely going to run out of fossil fuel
energyin a century or two: Lo
Long
ng Te
Term
rm is
issu
sue
e

F
Fossil
ossil fuels are available now in huge scale
scale

(unlike most other energy


(unlike
energy sources)
sources)
sources)


G
Greenhouse
reenhouse

Effect on Climate Change is the


the

MediumTe
Medium
Term
rm is
issu
sue
e

Well run out of atmosphere to hold the CO2
before we run out of fossil fuel.

Might even run out of capacity to store CO2

2
underground or in ocean...
ocean...

One Proposal to stabilize CO2: Efficiency+Biofuel+CO2 CCS

Courtesy of Ronald Prinn. Used with permission.

Shortterm Politico
Short
PoliticoEc
Econ
onom
omic
ic Is
Issu
sues

es

Fossil
F
ossil Fuels are Cheaper than Alternatives

es
W
Why
hy ~85% of worlds energy from fossil fuels
fuels
H
How
ow to incorporate social cost into price?
price?

A few countries hold almost all the worlds


worlds
oil and gas
gas reserves
Security? Balance
Balanceof
ofTr
Trad
ade?
e? De
Deve
velo
lopm
pmen
ent?
t?

Prices
P
rices fluctuate wildly (inflexible market)
market)
A
Adds
dds to risks for new energy supply ventures
ventures

Energy
E
nergy is lifeblood ofeconomy
ofeconomy
G
Governments
overnments very heavily involved
involved

Pressing Issues, Now to 2025

~50% increase in total g


gllobal
obal energy demand!!
H
Hu
ug
ge
e lo
long
ngtte
errm
me
en
ne
errg
gyy iin
nffrra
assttrru
uccttu
urre
e iin
nvve
essttm
me
en
nttss
D
Do
o these investments work for the planet, long term?
term?

Engineering & policies for large


larges
sc
ca
alle co
on
ns
se
errv
va
attiio
on
n

E
Electricity:
lectricity: more efficient production, devices, system
system??
C
Capex
apex vs. Opex: Doesnt always favor energy efficiency.
efficiency.

Can
C
an Oil production keep up with demand?
demand?
P
Probably
robably OK until 2020 if Iraq recovers. Doubtful after that
that

B
Better
etter recovery from existing fields? Exploit Arctic Ocean?
Ocean?
U
Unconventional
nconventional Oil? Other Sources of Liquid Fuels?
Fuels?

~100% (!) increase in global electricity use.


use.
N
Natural
atural Gas? Price? How to transport it? Security?
Security?

Coal? G
Greenhouse
reenhouse Gases! Feasible to sequester
er CO
CO2?
Nuclear? R
Reduce
educe chance of Weapons prolife
fera
rati
tion
on??

Facts to Bear in Mind

Energy production and use is capital


capitalintensive
(both renewables and fossil)

C
Capex
apex for power plant, oil platform, automobile, or HVA
HVAC
C
system more than single
singleyye
ea
arr e
en
ne
errg
gyy cco
osstt..

R
Reluctance
eluctance to replace equipment until it is worn out
out..

Multi

Mult
Mu
lti
iye
yyear
ear
ar la
llag
ag ttimes
imes
im
es in
in bu
building
b
uilildi
ding
ng bi
big
b
ig e
energy
nerg
ne
rgy p
projects
roje
ro
ject
cts.
s.


E
Energy
nergy

conversions and separations cost energy


energy


O
Often
ften lose a factor of 2 or more in each conversion
conversion

F
Fuel
uel to electricity
electricity

G
Gas
as or Coal to liquid fuels
fuels


Separating CO2 or O2 fr
from
om N2 co
cost
sts ene
nerg
rgyy

Required for CO2 se
sequ
ques
estr
trat
atio
ion.
n.

Energy
E
nergy Resource Basics
Basics

Liquid Fuels are much more valuable than


Liquid
an
gases, solids:

L
Liquid
iquid Fuel (oil): ~$20.00/MBtu
~$20.00/MBtu

High energy density, easy handling, id


idea
eal for
or tr
tran
ansp
spor
orta
tati
tion
on


N
Natural
atural Gas:

~ $6.00/MBtu
$6.00/MBtu


H
Hard
ard to transport: ~100x the volume per carbon.
carbon.
location dependent price (free at some remote locations)
V
Very
ery convenient for electricity, buildings
buildings

Coal:
Coal:
Coal:

~ $1
$1.50/MB
$1.50/MB
.50/MBtu

ttu
u

Difficult
D
ifficult to handle or burn cleanly: ash, slag
slag

Most
M
ost burned to make electricity
electricity

Most
M
ost Hydrocarbon Resources are Solids
Solids

Coal:
1000 Gton carbon
Oil Shale:
500 Gton carbon
Tar Sands:
400 Gton carbon
Biomass:
B
iomass:
60 Gton carbon/yr
carbon/yr
Oil:
300 Gton carbon
Natural Gas: >100 Gton carbon

((~
~1
10
00 ye
ea
arrs
s))
( ~5
50
0y
ye
ea
arrs
s))
( ~3
30
0y
ye
ea
arrs
s))
( ~3
30
0y
ye
ea
arrs
s))
( ~3
30
0y
ye
ea
arrs
s))

Making Fossil Fuels Less Unsustainable

Fossil Fuels are THE REALITY until 2050


Biofuels can substitute for some fossil fuel (but not
enough biomass on earth to replace even 50% of
current fossil fuel usage).

How
H
ow to Improve Fossil Fuel Sustainability?
Sustainability?

IImprove
mprove Efficiency!!
Efficiency!!
Fuels
uels llast
ast llonger,
onger, prices
prices ll lower,
ower, reduce
reduce security
security concerns
concerns
R
Reduce
educe Health/Environment/Climate Impacts
Impacts

S
Sequester
equester CO2
CO2

IImproving
mproving

Fossil Fuel Production/Supply


Production/Supply

(but this usually increase


increasess CO
CO2 emi
miss
ssio
ions
ns!)
!)
M
Make
ake Liquid Fuels from Solids, Gas
Gas
T
Transport
ransport Natural Gas
Gas
U
Use
se Difficult Hydrocarbon Resources
Resources
LLess
ess Destructive/Dangerous Mining Methods
Methods

Presentation Order

Rest ofthis lecture:


Fossil Fuels other than Oil
CO2 capture (for sequestration) overview

Later

in the Course:

More on Oil, Liquid Fuels for Transportation


Biomass to Liquid Fuels

Energy security, environment, economics often in conflict

Please see slide 5 in McRae, Gregory. "Cost Modeling and Comparative


Performance of Coal Conversion Systems." MIT Energy Short Course, June 14, 2006.

Natural Gas is a great fuel


but most is located far from consumers

Price recently collapsed


in USA due to new
production technology

W.F. Banholzer, DOE workshop Aug 2007

No one has yet invented a cost - effective way to make


gas into a shippable liquid transportation fuel.
Courtesy of William F. Banholzer. Used with permission.

Technical Challenge: Converting


Natural Gas to Liquids

Refrigerate to liquified natural gas (LNG)



W
Works,
orks, but huge capital investment, requires very larg
large
e
gas reserve. Costs a lot of energy, CO2 emissions.


Gasification

then Fischer
FischerTr
Trop
opsc
sch to die
iese
sel:
l:


C
CH4
H4 + 1/2 O2 = CO + 2 H2
H2

n CO + 2n H2 = (CH2)n + n H2O
H2O
A lot of chemical energy being converted to heat iin
n

remote location, often wasted. Big CO2 emissions.


emissions.


O
Other
ther

CH4 reactions??
reactions??

S
Several
everal concepts / patents, none successful so far
far
G
General
eneral problem: CH4 is less reactive than products
products

Local Environmental Impacts

Burning fossil fuels makes local pollution


Air pollution (other than CO2) can de dramatically reduced by
emissioncontrol devices
emission
Requires
Requires more capital
capital
R
Requires
equires ongoing government oversight
oversight
O
Often
ften reduces energy efficiency
efficiency


S
Solid
olid waste from impurities in coal
coal

Stateof
State
ofthe
thea
art
rt oil/gas produ
production
ctio
ct
io n m
minimizes
inim
in
imiz
izes
es
environmental impacts, yet

S
Significant
ignificant CO2 emissions in production.
production.

P
Potential
otential for large accidental leaks.
leaks.

Work in Arctic and off
offssh
ho
orre is da
an
ng
ge
erro
ou
uss..

Coal and tar production is ve


very
ry me
mess
ssyy

O
Often
ften big environmental impacts at the mine.
mine.

T
Tar
ar mining consumes lots of water, energy.
energy.

M
Mining
ining is dangerous.
dangerous.

Tar Sands
Locations: Canada
Canada,, Venezuela, Siberia.
~85% sand, ~15% hydrocarbon
Highly porous: bitumen will flow out if
if
T>80 C. H:C ~ 1.5
Commercial
Commercial:: ~2 mbd in Canada.

Surface mining and hot


hotwater washing
In
Insitu underground production (inject
steam).
Coke/Hydrotreat to make liquid, remove S.

Canadian Tar Sands:

Worlds largest earthmoving operation


Truck is bigger
than a house,
costs $5M.
~5 tons of sand
and peat moved
and ~1 barrel of
wastewater
produced
per barrel of
oil.
Photo by Alex Abboud on Flickr.

At 2 mbd, that is
a lot of polluted
water!

In-situ production from tar sands

Diagram of steam-assisted gravity drainage removed due to copyright restrictions.

Oil Shale
Locations: USA, Brazil. Colorados Green
River formation is most valuable.
 1515-20% solid kerogen in impervious
mineral matrix. Does not flow...
 Pyrolysis of crushed shale T~500 C
converts 2/3 of kerogen to heavy oil.
 Upgrade to remove N,S, reduce viscosity.
 H:C ~ 1.6 similar to diesel.


Mining Oil Shale in the Colorado Rockies


~8 tons of rock
mined
and ~3 tons of
water consumed
per ton of oil
produced.

Photo by SkyTruth on Flickr.

Maybe new in
situ method will
avoid mining,
reduce water
use?

IIsssues
sues with Tar Sands & Shale

Expensive processes
Large Capital Costs
Need lots of Labor in remote arre
eas:
as: new cities.
Consume huge amount of gas, water.
~2 barrels water evaporated per barrel of oil mad
ade
e
~100% of Mackenzie Delta gas will soon be used for
tar sands production.

Environmental impacts
CO2 emissions (~30% energy consumed to produce)
Waste water (comparable volume to oil made)
Waste solids (comparable volume to oil made, unless
ss
produced in situ)

Gr
Green
eenh
house Ga
Gass Consider
idera
atio
ion
ns


Fossi
ssill sol
solids emit more CO2 tha
han
n oil
Biom
omass
ass rou
outtes emit lle
ess CO2 than oi
oill




Fossi
ssill Solids-to-Liquids conv
nve
ersi
sio
on doub
ublles CO2
emissi
ssio
ons
Chi
hina
na is committing he
hea
avily to Coal
Coal
oal--to-Elect
ctrrici
citty is th
the biggest si
sin
ngle sou
sourrce of C
CO
O2.
Tech
chn
nology
ology to re
reduce CO2 emissi
ssion
onsat
sat a pr
price
consu
con
sum
mers in China, India, US will acce
accep
pt?

Some so
sorrt of political resp
spo
onse to Climate Cha
hang
nge
e
is coming (probably, event
ntua
uallly).
Car
arb
bon cap
caps
s or tta
axes?
xes?
Tighter effici
cie
ency regulat
atiion
ons?
s?
Lar
arg
gescal
scale
e CO2 cap
captture an
and
d se
seq
quest
strrat
atiion
on?
??

CO2 capture and underground sequestration is possible,


but significantly increases both capital & operating costs

Please see slide 22 in McRae, Gregory. "Cost Modeling and Comparative Performance of Coal
Conversion Systems." MIT Energy Short Course, June 14, 2006.

Public acceptance and unresolved policy issues even more problematic

CO2 Sequestration Projects


Sleipner, Statoil, Norway

Courtesy of Statoil. Used with permission.

In Salah/Krechba, BP, Algeria

Courtesy of BP. Used with permission.

Technical Challenge: CO2 capture


Option #1: CO2 capture from smokestack
2 CH + 2.5 O2 + 10 N2 = 2 CO2 + H2O +10 N
N2
2

llow
ow P CO2 dilute in lots of N2, hard to capture
capture
O

Option
ption

#2: gasify at high pressure (IGCC)


(IGCC)
4 CH + O2 + 6 H2O = 4 CO2 + 12 H2

S
Separate
eparate O2 from N2, and CO2 from H2
H2

O
Option
ption

#3: oxycombustion
oxycombustion

2 CH + 2.5 O2 = 2CO2 + H2O


S
Separate
eparate a LOT of O2 from N2 (~5 N2 per C burned)
burned)

Please see slide 21 in McRae, Gregory. "Cost Modeling and Comparative Performance of Coal
Conversion Systems." MIT Energy Short Course, June 14, 2006.

Integrated Gasification Combined


Cycle

Source: Botero, MIT


Sustainable Energy Fall 2010 Fossil Fuels I

29

Courtesy of Cristina Botero. Used with permission.

Please see slide 30 in McRae, Gregory. "Cost Modeling and Comparative Performance of Coal
Conversion Systems." MIT Energy Short Course, June 14, 2006.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Sustainable Energy

Ernest Moniz
Cecil & Ida Green Professor of
Physics and Engineering Systems
Director, MIT Energy Initiative

Some climate observations


Natural GHG effect/H2O (almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit)
Scale of CO2 doubling degrees Centigrade
CO2 is a cumulative issue because of residence time
Scale of degrees Centigrade impact substantial

Measured T rise post-industrial (whatever the source, but very suggestive!)


Patterns of regional impact (poles, extreme weather,) with some simple
drivers

Note: 1 ppm CO2 corresponds to about 2 gigatonnes carbon

Global Carbon Cycle (IPCC/EIA)


All Entries in Billion Metric Tons

ATMOSPHERE
780 (900 eq)

60.0

61.3

1.6
Changing
Land-Use

6.5

0.5

90

92
FOSSIL FUEL
COMBUSTION

VEGETATION & SOILS


2,200

OCEAN
40,000
3

Its later and more serious -- than we think


Without Policy

With Policy

MIT e i
MIT Energy Initiative

Analysis of Climate Policy Targets Under Uncertainty, Prinn, et al 2009


4

World map unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our
Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.

HURRICANES:
INCREASING DESTRUCTIVENESS OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS?

Power
Dissipation
Index(PDI)
= T0 Vmax3dt
(ameasure
of storm

destruction)

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature.


Source: Emanuel, Kerry. "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical
Cyclones over the Past 30 years." Nature 436 (2005): 686-688. 2005.
Courtesy of Ronald Prinn. Used with permission.

Magnitude of CO2-eq Reductions

Required

BAU emissions in 2050: about 70 B tonnes CO2-eq


50% reduction from today: about 20 B tonnes,
About 2 tonnes/person
Asymptote?

Roughly one
tonne per person?
MIT e i
MIT
MI
T Energy Initiative

6
World map unknown. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our
Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.

47
35

34

34

GDP per capita

23
16

14

12

10

10

0.7

($k ppp)

0.3

19

CO2 per capita

15.8

(tons)

11

10

9.7

8.6
6.6

6.2
6
.2

4.3

4.1

1.9

1.5

1.3

0.8

0.1

0.03

6.1

5.7

Total CO2 Emissions


(gigatons)

1.5

1.3
0.8

0.4

0.4

1.5
0.4

0.5

0.35

0.4

0.27

0.33

0.1

0.006

0.04

0.0007

0.002

Developing Countries Focus on Income Growth

US

India

Greenstone

Some observations
Unusual case of experts more worried than public! (Socolow, Princeton)
* numeracy important: Man would rather commit suicide than do

arithmetic. (G.B.Shaw/Gibbons)

* anthropogenic emissions of CO2/GHG are on the scale to materially


re-engineer the
re-engineer
the atmosphere,
atmosphere, in
in a relatively
relatively short
short period
period (fraction
(fraction of
of a

a
century scale); natural variation also occurs

* current understanding and simple arithmetic call for collective


prudence in policy and behavior: a call for action, not inaction - indeed,
onus should be on case for inaction, rather than the other way around!

US Carbon Dioxide Emissions (EIA


BAU)
Millions of Metric Tons
Residential +
Commercial
2006

2030

Industrial

2006

Transportation

2030

2006

2030

Total

2006

2030

Petroleum

153

137

421

436

1952

2145

2526

2718

Natural Gas
Natural
Gas

392

483

399

433

33

43

824

959

Coal

10

189

217

289

226

Electricity

1698

2295

642

647

2344

2947

TOTAL

2253

2924

1651

1733

1989

2193

5983

6822

1.1%/yr

0.2%/yr

0.4%/yr

0.6%/yr

10

MIT Future of Natural Gas Study

11

U.S. Gas Supply Cost Curve

Breakdown of Mean U.S. Supply Curve by Gas Type


Breakeven Gas Price*
$/MMBtu

Breakeven Gas Price*


$/MMBtu

Tcf of Gas

Tcf of Gas

* Cost curves calculated using 2007 cost bases. U.S. costs represent wellhead breakeven costs. Cost curves calculated assuming 10% real discount rate, ICF Hydrocarbon
Supply Model

11

MIT Future of Natural Gas Study

1212

Price-based
mitigation
50% by 2050
No offsets

Electric sector

Total energy

MIT Future of Natural Gas Study

Gas: A Bridge to ???


US power sector

Gas

Nuclear or other
low-CO2
generation

13

Obama platform

Climate policy elements

Economy-wide cap & trade


1990 emissions levels by 2020 (14% reduction)
80% reduction by 2050
Emissions credits auctioned
$15B/year of auction revenue for clean energy RDD&D

Major challenges

Financial crisis/deep recession


Regional differences/allocations?

Obama platform contd


Efficiency programs

Federal energy consumption: -25% retrofit of Federal buildings in


five years
National requirement for utility decoupling (authorities?)

Weatherize a million
Weatherize
million homes
homes annually
annuall
y
Set national building efficiency goals

Obama platform contd

International position

Re-engage and establish leadership after getting house in order


Convening role for G8+5 (China,
(China, India,
India, Brazil,
Brazil, Mexico,
Mexico, South
Africa)???
China and Brazil must not be far behind/time lag
Copenhagen? Cancun? ?

Copenhagen Accord:
Brazil, China, India, South Africa, USA

Political vs treaty agreement


Differentiated responsibilities acknowledged rationally
Different structure of national commitments, largely backed up by domestic
legislative initiatives
Annex I/non-Annex I Kyoto construct largely superseded
Eliminate consensus straitjacket
Major

Major emitters
emitters focus
focus on action
action
Start on transparency of monitoring and verification
Critical role of adaptation acknowledged, with funds to least developed
National responsibilities recorded for MANY countries
Will UNFCCC process revive as central venue for negotiations? EU, Japan, Russia,
Mexico, Indonesia, position?

Major Economies Forum? G20? Other configurations of major emitters representing 80-90% of emissions?

No real shot at 450 ppm CO2-eq?

Copenhagen Accord Registrations:


Brazil, China, India, USA

USA

China

20-25% lower CO2/GDP by 2020

Near term implementation of standards on fuel efficiency and building energy use
20% non-large-hydro renewables by 2020 (now 8%)

Brazil

40-45% lower CO2/GDP by 2020

15% non-fossil by 2020

40M additional hectares forest by 2020

India

CO2 emissions 17% below 2005 by 2020

83% by 2050

Depends on Congressional action (above represent current discussions)

36-39% less CO2 than BAU in 2020 (roughly 1994 levels)


Reduce deforestation by 80% vs historical practice in 2020

EU

CO2 20% below 1990 levels by 2020


30% if others play hard

Meeting US commitments to 2020?

Demand reduction

Efficiency across sectors, but especially buildings and transportation

Displacement of existing coal (without CCS)

Electricity and NG for buildings, oil for transportation

NG repowering
repowering
Bridge to somewhere?
Increased nuclear
Increased renewables/RES?
Intermittency? Unintended consequences?

Elephants in the room at UNFCCC negotiations!

Nuclear and NG

Reshaping energy policy/DOE

Authority to develop/implement energy policy




DOE has relatively little statutory or regulatory authority


Legislative process slow and yields mixed results
Congressional expansion of DOE authorities?

Enhancing DOE energy technology innovation



Undersecretary for Science and Energy


Energy technology office reorganization from fuels to uses (e.g. transportation);
portfolio approach around strategic objectives
Large scale demonstrations: Energy Technology Corporation with assured budgets
and less management encumbrance
Translational research office (ARPA-E)
Innovation Hubs

Questions/Discussion

Premise: there will be no comprehensive climate legislation


for many years? If this proves to be correct:
Wh
should be
be the
the revised
strategy?
What
at should
revised energy/climate
energy/climate strategy?
What should be the policy with regard to intermittent
renewables?
How should we engage internationally?
What should we do about DOE and energy technology
innovation?

21

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Transport Issues and the

Environment in Latin

America

Ralph Gakenheimer

Professor of Urban Planning, MIT

-- Oct. 21, 2010-

Presentation Sequence
Some Program Contrasts--Bogot,

Mxico, Santiago and So Paulo

Wider Urban Contrasts



Contrasts--8
--8 World Cities

Cities
The Tricky Case of Congestion Pricing

The Challenges--Are We Meeting


Them?

Program Contrasts:

Bogot, Mxico, Santiago,

So Paulo

Initiatives are similar in different cities.


-BUT
Variations in detail often mean widely different
levels of achievement
There is much to be learned from
comparative studies

Transit Administration and Regulation

Contrasting experiences with bus regulation:


Mxico

Santiago

So Paulo

Bogot

70s and
before

Private Operators,
some regulation

Public operation, some


regulated private
operators

CMTC, Municipal Bus


Company operated main
lines, and subcontrat other
services

Private Operators subject to


control from the Ministry of
Transportation

80s

Governments
takes over all
routes, Ruta-100
is created

Total privatization and


liberalization

Increase in the proportion of


lines operated by CMTC.
Initial BRT corridors and
trolleybuses were built.
built.

In 1987, regulation of urban


buses is transfered to
municipalities

90s

Ruta-100 goes
bankrupt,
explosive growth
of informal transit

Strong move towards


governments regulation
of private operators, route
bidding process

Privatization of Municipal
Public Bus Company.
SPTRans, an agency in
charge of transit planning and
management, is created

Municpality allowed three


fare levels according to level
of service to encourage fleet
renewal. Restrictions to the
import of new buses were
lifted.

2000s

Government trying
to control informal
transit

Route associations
becoming formal firms,
international operators
moving in, integration with
subway

Working toward fare


integration.
New BRT lines being built.

Transmilenio is launched.
Fare integration with other
private operators.

Colectivos: Mexico

Tolerated since the 1950s--recognized in the 1960s


Licensed to service metro stations from 1969
Needed because of failure of public transport
Advocated by the profession and the international banks
during the 70s--high service level,
level, wide coverage.
coverage. Each
vehicle averages 700 passengers, 150 km./day
Loose operating specifications and weak oversight
GENUINE DILEMMA

Travel Demand Management


A comparison of traffic ban programs:
Mxico City

Santiago

Bogot

So Paulo

Name of the
program

Hoy no Circula

Restriccin Vehicular

Pico y Placa

Rodizio

Hours of
operation

5:00 22:00

7:00 19:00

7:00 9:00
17:00 19:00

7:00 10:00
17:00 20:00

Vehicles that
are subject

Only vehicles built


before 1993

Only vehicles built


before 1992

All vehicles

All vehicles

% of these
vehicles banned
each day

20%

20%

40%

20%

Comments

Relative high cost


of new vehicles
From 1989
has incentivated
the purchase of
old cars
Fixed schedule

From late 80s


Low tariffs and a
rotatory schedule
(changes once a
month) have reduced
the incentives to buy
secondary cars

From 1998.
Fixed schedule
(changed once a
year)

From 1996.
Only within central
area
Fixed schedule

Hoy No Circula: Mexico

Mixed Opinion: a Dialog

Objectives both environmental and


congestion oriented.
Mxico g


goes
oes from net exporter
exp
orter of used cars
to net importer.

importer.
95 Estimate that 22% drivers get second
vehicle
But contributes to solving environment and
congestion problem

Metros: Scale, Performance


Mexico City

Santiago

Sao Paulo

Number of lines

11

Total extension
((km)
km)

202

60

58

Passengers per
year (million)

1,430

200

520

7.1

4.9

10.1

16.1

38.0

33.6

12% (1999)

7% (2001)

8% (1997)

Passengers per km
of alignment
(million)
Average fare per
passenger (US
cents)

Mode Share (over


motorized trips)

Urban Transportation Modeling


Mxico City

Santiago

Bogot

So Paulo

Models
EMME/2
being used

ESTRAUS
(developed in
Chile), EMME2

EMME/2,
Transcad, Tranus

MVAs START

Who
mantains
the data?

Secretary of the
Environment, DF

SECTRA, Ministry
of Public Works

Secretary of
Transportation of
Bogota,
Transmilenio.

Secretary for
Metropolitan
Transportation

O/D
surveys

Last one in 1994,


which has some
errors

Last one in 2002

Last one in 1997

ESTRAUS is
integrated with
land-use model
(MUSSA) and
emissions model
(MODEM)

START was adapted


to SP for the
formulation of a
transportation plan
for 2020 (PITU
2020)

Comments Not enough


resources to
mantain the
model
Not very useful
at present state

Focus on the Two-Wheeler Dilemma

City

Region

Belo Horizonte

Latin America

Chennai

South Asia

Dakar

Kuala Lumpur Mexico City

Africa

South East Asia

Latin America

Mumbai

South Asia

Shanghai

Asia

Asia

GDP per capita (USS)

$6,000

$800

$1,500

$8,000

$7,500

$1,200

Population millions

4.2

2.5

18-23

18

13-17

4-8.5

Average annual growth rate

1.5%

2.4%

3.2%

2%

2%

3%

0.42%

1%

Density (population/ hectare)

4-63

59-288

35

10-58

50-120

120-460

14-460

10-160

Age distribution

26%<15
4%>65

26%<15
8%>60

43%<15
5%<55

27%<15
4%>65

30%<15
5%>65

26%<15
6%>60

12%<15
12%<65

16%<15
12%>65

Trip rate (trips/day)

1.43
(1995)

1.24
(1993)

2.3
(1998)

2.4
(1997)

1.2-1.4
(1994)

1.26

1.95
(1996)

2.25
(1998)

Personal vehicles/1,000 pop.

225 4-wheelers
22 2-wheelers

40 4-wheelers
171 2-wheelers

42

Rail transit

1 line metro

1 line metro
3 suburban rail

Fare (USS)

$0.30

$0.10

Non-motorized transport

5-7%
(1995)

44%

44%

Public transport

69%
(1995)

47%

45%

300 4-wheelers
170 2-wheelers

1 suburban rail 3 lines LRT


2 sub rail
$0.20-0.60
NA
20%
(of motorized)

$4,200 (2000)

Wuhan

110
8 2-wheelers

27 4-wheelers
25 2-wheelers

4-20 4-wheelers
35 2-wheelers

11 line metro

2 suburban rail
Services 3 lines

3 metro lines

$0.20

$2,000

14 4-wheelers
31 2-wheelers
none

$0.12-0.50

NA
(possibly 15%)

NA
26% in 1981

72%
(1995)

61%

70%
(of motorized)

88%
(of motorized)

17%
(1995)

22%

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD), Overview of Main Traits of Developing Countries.

Guayaquil, Ecuador

Carlos Gonzlez B.; Csar Arias 2006

Courtesy of Cesar Arias. Used with permission.

Carlos Gonzlez B.; Csar Arias 2006

Courtesy of Cesar Arias. Used with permission.

TranSantiago: the Problems


Many agencies--national gov. dominance, no
executive role
Inadequate system
Inadequate
system completion
completion and buses,
many transfers
Only on-board ticket reading
Few dedicated lanes
Station stop door positions not indicated

CONGESTION PRICING
DEFINITION
A charge on vehicle use levied at
points of congestion for the purpose of
reducing the number of vehicles below
congestion level ....... and collecting
revenue.

Types of Congestion Pricing


Area Licensing Zone (ALZ) around Central Business
District (as in London, formerly Singapore).
Large Perimeter Scheme (as
Large
(as in cities of Norway).
Norway).

Area Coverage Scheme (as in Singapore).


Street or Highway Lane Based Scheme (as in Houston).

Road Pricing
A Broader and Different Concept
Possible by such means as:
Gas Taxes
Purchase Taxes on Vehicles
Licensing, Highway Use or Other Periodical Charges
Parking Taxes
Not Congestion Pricing because they are
not based on location and time of road use.

Institutional Links for Congestion


Pricing
Trip makers who will pay the tariff
Trip makers who will take other options
Trip makers who are disadvantaged by the
initiative
Trip makers unaffected by the initiative

City center retailers and employers
Transit concessionaries
Public transit agencies
Plans for the use of revenue
Responsible elected public officials

Public Acceptability:
What to Call Congestion Pricing?
Congestion Pricing
Value Pricing
Rationing
Externalities Charges
Fairness Management
Road Pricing

Congestion Pricing Survey

Mexico City, January 2004

Congestion Pricing objectives


Method to manage demand, and allocate road space


efficiently between different modes by charging a fee.
Improves utilization of present road capacity to reduce

need for large


large investments ((such
such as Segundo
Segundo Piso)
Piso)

Implies that people pay a fee to reflect the true costs of


car use in congested urban areas. These include: time
delays due to congestion, pollution, fuel costs, road
accidents, road maintenance and operation costs
Increases efficiency of public transport (buses)
Raises revenues and can reduce fiscal deficit

This was theIntroduction at thestart of thesurveysheet for


thosenotfamiliar withCongestion Pricing.

Survey Questions and Responses


Total Mexican Respondents =50
1) Are youfamiliar withtheconcept of congestion pricing?
Yes: 19

No: 25

NotCompletely: 6

Familiarity with the issue of congestion pricing


50
45

No. of Respondents

40

Not
completely
38%

35
30
25

Yes
50%

20
15
10
5
0
Yes

No

Not completely

Responses

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

No
12%

Survey Questions and Responses


1) Howserious do you considerthe problemof traffic
congestionin MexicoCitytoday?
Reasonable problem 6
Still notaproblem 0
Problem inacriticalstage 44
Still not a
problem
0%

How serious is the problem of congestion in MC today?

50
45
No. of Respondents

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Still not a problem

Reasonable
problem
Responses

Problem in a critical
stage

Problem in
a critical
stage
88%

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Reason
able
problem
12%

Survey Questions and Responses


3) What doyou thinkis the worstimpact of trafficcongestion
in MexicoCity?Please rank top 3options.
Loss in productivity/quality of life ____ Travel delays ____
Road accidents _____ Air pollution _____
High fuel/infrastructure costs _____
Other _____

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Rank 3

High
fuel/infrastruc
ture costs
6%

Road
accidents
2%

Other
0%

Rank 1

Travel delays
11%

Rank 2

Loss in
productivity/q
uality of life
52%

Rank 1

Impacts

Other

Road accidents

High
fuel/infrastructure
costs

Travel delays

Air pollution

Air pollution
29%

Loss in
productivity/quality
of life

respondentts
Number of responden
s

Ranking of Impacts Considered Important

Travel delays
Loss in productivity/quality of life
(can be addedup)

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Survey Questions and Responses


Best Wayto Deal With Traffic Congestion inMexico City
Top 3 Ranks for Preferred Policy Options
50
45

No. of R
Respondents
espondents

40
35
30

Rank 3

25

Rank 2

20

Rank 1

15
10
5
0
Option D

Option F

Option C

Option A

Option B

Option E

Policy Measures Considered

OPTIONS KEY
A Reform parking policies, and introduce higher parking charges in congested area
B Introduce congestion pricing, applicable either during peak hours or on certain congested city roads
C Use traffic bans such as Hoy No Circula or Pico y Placa
D Improve public transport, use physical restraints such as busonly lanes and pedestrian zones
E Expand infrastructure and increase road capacity
F Any combination of the above policies (you may suggest combinations)
Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Survey Questions and Responses


5) BestOption forRaising Revenue:
Which of the following do you think will be best for raising revenues? Please rank top 3.
Option A _____ Option B _____ Option C _____ Option D _____ Option E _____
Ranking of Options Considered Best for Revenues
Option C
12%

50

Option E
2%

Rank 1

45

Respo
ondents
No. of Resp
ndents

40
35
30

Rank 3

25

Rank 2

20

Rank 1

Option D
14%

Option B
44%

15
10
5
0
Option B

Option A

Option D

Option C

Option E

Different Options Considered

Option A
28%

OPTIONS KEY
A Reform parking policies, and introduce higher parking charges in congested area
B Introduce congestion pricing, applicable either during peak hours or on certain congested city roads
C Use traffic bans such as Hoy No Circula or Pico y Placa
D Improve public transport, use physical restraints such as busonly lanes and pedestrian zones
E Expand infrastructure and increase road capacity
F Any combination of the above policies (you may suggest combinations)
Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Survey Questions and Responses


6) Option Most Acceptable to Public
Which of the following do you think will be most acceptable to people? Please rank top 3.
Option A ___ Option B ___ Option C ___ Option D ___ Option E ____ Option F ____
Ranking of Options Most Acceptable to People
Option C
10%

50
45

Option B
2%

Rank 1

Respond
dents
No. of Respon
ents

40
35
30

Rank 3

25

Rank 2

20

Rank 1

Option D
37%

Option A
16%

15
10
5
0
Option D

Option E

Option A

Option C

Option B

Policy Options

Option E
35%

OPTIONS KEY
A Reform parking policies, and introduce higher parking charges in congested area
B Introduce congestion pricing, applicable either during peak hours or on certain congested city roads
C Use traffic bans such as Hoy No Circula or Pico y Placa
D Improve public transport, use physical restraints such as busonly lanes and pedestrian zones
E Expand infrastructure and increase road capacity
F Any combination of the above policies (you may suggest combinations)
Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Survey Questions and Responses


7) Stakeholder Group With Most Resistance to Congestion Pricing:
Who do you think will have the most resistance to a pricing policy such as A
andB above?
Car owners ____
Colectivo / taxi drivers ____
Businesses ____ Other ____

Freight operators ____

Stakeholder Group Expected to Have Most Resistance to a Pricing


Policy

Business
6%

Ranks 1 or 2

Freight
operators
10%

50
45
40
No. of Respondents

Other
4%

Car
owners
49%

35
Rank 3

30
25

Rank 2

20

Rank 1

15

Colectivo /
taxi drivers
31%

10
5
0
Car owners

Colectivo / taxi

Freight

drivers

operators

Businesses

Other

Stakeholder Groups

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Note: The respondents who chose


the option Other, specified their
choice as Politicians

Survey Questions and Responses


8) Use of Pricing Revenues
How should the revenues from a pricing policy be spent? Please rank options from 1 4.
Road and public transport improvements _____
Tax reductions (e.g. tenencia) _____
Improving institutional capacity _____ General fund for health, education, welfare projects _____
Prerences for How Pricing Revenues Should be Spent
50
45

No. of Respondents

40
35
30

Rank 3

25

Rank 2

20

Rank 1

15
10
5
0
Road and public
transport
improvements

General fund for

Improving

health, education, institutional capacity


welfare projects

Tax reductions (e.g.


tenencia)

Improving
institutiona
l capacity
10%

General
fund for
health,
education,
welfare
projects
24%

Options

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Tax
reduction
(e.g.
tenencia)
6%

Rank 1

Road and
public
transport
improvem
ents
60%

Survey Questions and Responses


10) Biggest Challenges
What do think is the biggest challenge in implementing congestion pricing for Mexico
City? Please rank options from 1 to 7.
Lack of funds _____ Public resistance _____ Fragmentedinstitutions _____
Poor
enforcement _____ Lack of alternatives to driving _____ Vandalism of traffic cameras
andother installations _____ Political conflicts ______
Biggest Challenge for Pricing in Mexico City
35

25

Rank 3

20

Rank 2

15

Rank 1

10
5

Options

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

Poor
enforcement

Vandalism of
traffic
cameras /
installations

Lack of
funds

Lack of
alternatives
to driving

Fragmented
institutions

Political
conflicts

0
Public
resistance

No. of Respondents

30

SUMMARY:

The Challenges

Congestion
Inadequate Public Transit Services
Urban Structure Problems--Urban Form
vs. travel needs
Economic Development--Need to Favor
Freight, Mobilize the Labor Force

SUMMARY:

Solution Modes

Public Infrastructure Expansion


(including by public-private concession
agreements)
Congestion

Cong
estion Management/demand
Management/demand
management/congestion pricing

Managing Formal and Informal Public


Transport--system integration
Land Use Planning for Urban Transport
Efficiency

Challenge #1: Congestion

WHAT FUTURE FOR CONGESTION? DEPENDS MORE ON SPEED

OF MOTORIZATION THAN THE LEVEL OF MOTORIZATION


AVERAGE URBAN SPEEDS ARE LOW
9 KM/HR IN SEOUL AND SHANGHAI,
10 KM/HR IN BANGKOK, MANILA AND MEXICO
17 KM/HR
KM/HR IN KUALA LUMPUR AND SAO PAULO

AVERAGE COMMUTE TIMES IN MANILA 120 MIN., JAKARTA 82


MIN., BOGOTA 90 MIN., RIO DE JANEIRO 106 MIN.

CHALLENGE: ENABLE AUTOMOBILE USE IN ITS MOST SOCIALLY

EFFECTIVE ROLE
A ROLE FOR CAR SHARING IN DEVELOPING CITIES?
USE OF NEW ELECTRONICS FOR TRAFFIC FACILITATION
LIMITATIONS ON USE OF CARS IN CONGESTION AREAS
CONGESTION PRICING?

Challenge #2: Managing Public


Transit and For mal Transit
ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 70% OF TRIPS IN MOST DEVELOPING CITIES

WEAKENED BY POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, AND


CONGESTION.
UNAUTHORIZED TRANSIT HAS GROWN TO A LARGE PORTION OF
THE MARKET IN MANY CITIES:
50% in Dakar and Taipei, 40% in Caracas, 65% in Manila, 11% to
56% in Mexico in 10 years

CHALLENGES:
CREATE MANAGERIAL STRENGTH AND SOURCES OF
FINANCING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
DESIGN AND ENACT SYSTEM INTEGRATION FOR PUBLIC
TRANSPORT
ADOPT NEW MODES FOR MORE RAPID TRANSIT SERVICE

Challenge #3: Land Use and Urban


Transpor t
EXPLOSIVE DECENTRALIZATION OF URBAN ACTIVITIES
TOWARD METROPOLITAN PERIPHERIES PERMITS ADJUSTMENT
TO MORE AFFLUENT LIFESTYLES AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES
THE PROBLEMS: SOCIAL FRAGMENTATION, ABSORPTION OF
ARABLE LAND, INCREASED CONGESTION, INCREASED TRIP
LENGTH POLLUTION,
POLLUTION, GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS, FUEL
CONSUMPTION
CHALLENGES:
REDUCE EXCESSIVE URBAN DENSITIES, ADJUST TO MODERN
TECHNOLOGIES WITHOUT CAUSING EXCESSIVE
DECENTRALIZATION
DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND STANDARDS THAT CREATE
CLUSTERING OF DEMAND ADAPTIVE TO MORE EFFICIENT
TRANSPORTATION

Challenge #4: Focusing Mobility on


Economic Development
POSITION MOBILITY TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF THE URBAN
ECONOMY LOWERING PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
COSTS, MOBILIZING LABOR, EXPANDING AVAILABLE LABOR
MARKET FOR INDUSTRY, FACILITATING EDUCATION
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS HAVE HIGH RATES OF
RETURN: WORLD BANK SHOWS 18% TO 25% AVERAGES OVER
THE LAST 25 YEARS.
FUNDS ARE SHORT BUT HELP IS ARISING THROUGH PRIVATE
CONCESSIONING AND ROAD SECTOR FUNDS. WORLD BANK
LENT $2.5 TRILLION TO TRANSPORT, 60% OF IT FOR ROADS.
FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE ARE MORE DIFFICULT THAN FOR
NEW PROJECTS . . .
. . . . BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH CONGESTED LINKS IN
THE NETWORK WHILE EXPANDING THE NETWORK, AND NOT
TO COUNT ON IT FOR SOLVING CONGESTION

Challenge #5: Making Concessions


Work for Roads and Transit
THE EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN BASICALLY POSITIVE
BUT THERE IS A CONTINUING NEED TO:
FORMALIZE PARTICIPATING CONSORTIA
ENSURE COMPETITIVE BIDDING

MANAGE ADEQUATE ASSIGNMENT OF RISK


ASSURE INTEGRATION OF SERVICE, FARE AND TOLLS
PROVIDE ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE
CONDITIONS
REDUCE INCUMBENTS' ADVANTAGES
RETAIN PUBLIC CONTROL OF THE OVERALL NETWORK

THANKS FOR

WATCHING.AND

LISTENING..and now,

COMMENTING!

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Why Discuss Fossil Fuels in


Sustainable Energ
rgyy?

Is improving effic
fficiency to reduce fo
fosssil fu
fue
el
use by 1 TW the same as adding 1 TW of
f
renewable energy generation?
In what ways is it the same? How is it different?
If cost of efficiency and cost of renewable were
the same, which would you prefer? Why?
Which approach do you think is cheaper?

The importance of
fS
SCALE: $6,000B/yr
Small percent changes are HUGE
Small percent investment in R&D is HUGE

Wedge View of CO2 problem

Need 7 approaches, each providing a wedge. Many of the


inexpensive options involve improving efficiency of fossil
fuel utilization.
Graph by Carbon Mitigations Initiative, Princeton University.

The McKinsey Curve

Estimating $/ton of CO2 emissions avoided


Courtesy of McKinsey & Company. Used with permission.

One Proposal to stabilize CO2: Efficiency+Biofuel+CO2 CCS

Courtesy of Ronald Prinn. Used with permission.

Fossil
Fo
ssil Fuels III:
LiquidFuels for Trra
ansportation
nsportation
~30% of fossil fuel use
>50% of energy economics
Diesel, Gasoline, Jet Fuel
and the vehicles that burn them

Liquid Fuels Basics

Almost 100% of transportation runs on liquid fuels


(mostly petroleum)

A
And
nd most petroleum is used for transportation
transportation

Well
Welle
established
stablished technology: reliable, conve
en
niie
en
ntt

No technology in sight to replace liquid fuels for air


No
air
transportation.
Cars,
C
ars, trucks, trains: several future options
options

M
More
ore efficient internal combustion engines
engines
F
Fuel
uel cells are another type of engine
engine


A
Alternative
lternative liquid fuels
fuels

G
Gaseous
aseous fuels (natural gas, H2)
H2)
N
Need
eed to generate the H2 (from natural gas?)
gas?)


E
Electric
lectric (overhead wires or batteries)
batteries)
N
Need
eed to generate the electricity (from coal?)
coal?)

Liquid
Li
quid Fuel may run short: Since 1990,
Discovering Less Oil than we are Burning
ng

This image from: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/graphics/ace060315.pdf

Graph from Fournier, Donald F., and Eileen T. Westervelt. "Energy Trends and their Implications
for U.S. Army Installations." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (September 2005): ERDC/CERL TR-05-21.

Liquid Fuel Mark


rke
et Changing Drama
ramattically
Extrapolated
Demand
IEA 2002
(big increase
in Middle East
Oil Production)

these are considered pessimistic projections. Others predict far higher production for the future
The optimists premise their estimates for the future entirely on production from the Middle East and
Central Asia.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Graph from Fournier, Donald F., and Eileen T. Westervelt. "Energy Trends and their Implications
for U.S. Army Installations." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (September 2005): ERDC/CERL TR-05-21.

Exxperience
E
perience with Oil Projections

Historically, Nothing is Smooth!

i.e. the smooth projections are No


on
nsense
sense
Wars, economic cycles, natural disasters
P
Po
olitical
litical changes (positive & negative)
Technology changes
Technology
changes

Fuel demand is not very elastic


prices can climb and fall very quickly

High prices will inspire production

Big increase in Middle East production


Increases in all sorts of alternatives as well
Lag times of ~5 years in production increases
High price can drive world economy into recession.

Price
Pr
ice is almost impossible to predict.
Fuel taxes, subssiidies
dies &regulations even worse.

Graph of crude oil prices from 1947-2009 removed due to copyright restrictions.

Big T
Trransport
rta
ation Fuels Supply Gap
Extrapolated
Demand
The Gap:
~10 Gb/yr
=27 mbd

these are considered pessimistic projections. Others predict far higher production for the future
The optimists premise their estimates for the future entirely on production from the Middle East and
Central Asia.
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Graph from Fournier, Donald F., and Eileen T. Westervelt. "Energy Trends and their Implications
for U.S. Army Installations." U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (September 2005): ERDC/CERL TR-05-21.

What cou
oulld fill gap bet
etw
ween tra
ran
nsp
sport
ort
liquid fuel dema
eman
nd & oil
oil prod
rodu
uction
on??













Venezuelan tar (extra heavy oil)


Unexpected oil discoveries or production rates
Improved petroleum recovery rates
GasGas-toto-Liquids
Faster than expected development of tar sands
Improved transport system efficiency
CoalCoal-toto-Liquids (methanol?)
Shale oil
Gaseous fuels for transportation (CNG, H2)
Conventional biofuels (from sugars, oils)
Fuels from other biomass (e.g. cellulosic)
Electricity

One way out: dont use liquid fuels at all!

Photo by IFCAR on Wikimedia Commons.

Chevrolet Volt

Electric
E
lectric cars are nearly ready
Boston Globe July 22, 2007

Note electricity probably will come from burngin coal;


might solve oil shortage but not greenhouse gas problem.

Slide from S. Koonin talk at MIT Sept. 2005


Courtesy of Steven E. Koonin. Used with permission.

Orr will
O
will the gap be filled with biofuels?

Photos by Kables on Flickr and Nyttend on Wikimedia Commons.

Will need to convert cellulose too, to significantly close the gap.


Conventional biofuel production uses a lot of natural gas.

Hydro
Hydroge
gen
n in
insstead of
of ba
battterie
riess?
Fuel cells in
insstead of
of heat e
en
ngin
gine
es?

Photo by Anika Malone on Flickr.

Honda FCX Prototype

H2 could be made from natural gas (w/ CO2 emissions):


Price? Distribution? Range of vehicle?

Gaseous Fuels: CNG is simpl


mple and abundant

Photo by Christian Giersing on Wikimedia Commons.

Volvo B10BLE

Hard to achieve acceptable range with gaseous fuels.


Natural Gas supplies are limited in US, EU, China. Maybe better
to use it for heating, chemicals, electricity?

LIQUID FUEL WOULD BE MUCH BETTER!

Opt
ptio
ion
ns fo
forr making
ing liqu
liquid
id fu
fuels
els


GasGas-toto-Syngas
Syngas--toto-Liquids
Commercial: Sumatra, Qatar
Requires cheap gas, has to compete with LNG

CoalCoal-toto-SynGas
SynGas--toto-Liquids
Commercial: South Africa, now China.

Coal Liquefaction
Commercialized by Germany during war.

Biofuels (Ethanol, treated vegetable oil)


Commercial: Brazil, USA, EU.

Oil Shale pyrolysis


Has been commercial in many countries.

Melt tar out of Tar Sands, then upgrade.


Commercial: Canada

Need to Look at Whole Picture

All synfuels processes are complicated


E
Each
ach step adds expense & reduces efficiency.
efficiency.
Most processes greatly in
incr
crea
ease
se CO
CO2 emi
miss
ssio
ions
ns!!

M
Modularize
odularize to deal with complexity, but
but

What
W
hat do we really
really want?
want?
G
Gasoline?
asoline? Jet fuel? Diesel? Fuels for new engines?
engines?

E
Electricity
lectricity??

Need
N
eed Integrated View
View
co
cooptimize
optimize independent module
les.
s.
IIntegrated
ntegrated View should drive R&D focus.
focus.
P
Policy:
olicy: CO2 sequestration? Other externalities?
externalities?

Making Liquid Fuels from Nonliquids

Converting Tar (or Shale) to ordinary fuels

2 mbd operational or under construction

Gasto
Gas
toLiquids (Fischer
(FischerT
Trro
op
psscch diie
esse
ell))
0
0.4
.4 mbd operational or under construction.
construction.

Coalto
Coal
toLiquids (F
(FT diesel, F
FT ga
asso
olliin
ne
e,, o
orr m
me
etth
ha
an
no
oll))
0.15 mbd in So
South
S
out
uth A
Africa
fric
fr
ica
a
P
Planned
lanned construction of ~1 mbd in China
China

Common
C
ommon features:
features:

Huge capital investments in the conversion units


Huge
units
Long
L
ong lead times (~5 years).
years).
Capex
C
apex dominated: once you build a unit, never turn it off.
off.
Conversion losses imply extremely large CO2 em
emis
issi
sion
ons
s
Capturing & sequestering CO2 redu
reduce
ces eff
ffic
icie
ienc
ncy,
y, ad
adds
ds to
to ca
cape
pex.
x.

Research Issues: Chemistry

Alternative
Alternativ
e chemical
chemical routes to liquid fuels?

CH4 + air
ir,h
,hea
eatt so
some
meth
thin
ing con
onde
dens
nsab
able
le??

avoid two
twosstep
tep process. Air insstte
ea
ad of O2?

N
Need
eed separation methods that work at reactor T


Coal + H2 valuab
valuable
le liliqu
quid
idss
a
avoid
void syngas step and air separation
separation

N
Need
eed better quality liquid products than made with existing
existing
coal liquefaction processes.


C
Catalysts
atalysts

that more selectively remove N from


from
shale oil, minimize H2 co
cons
nsum
umpt
ptio
ion.
n.

R
Reactions
eactions (and separations) that work at Ts that
that
allow better heat integration.

Pro
P
roperties
perties of a successful new fuel
Liquid, high energy density. C/H//O
O only.
only.
Volatility ofgasoline or light diesel.
Ifpolar, must be biodegradable to avoid
groundwater contamination.
Ifsoluble in gasoline/diesel, must be some
me
special advantage in keeping it separate.

Much Better Engine or Emissions Performance

Alternative Liquid Fuels:


The $64,000 Question

Currently most new liquid fuels are diluted into


petroleumderived
petroleum
derived gasoline
ne or
or di
dies
esel
el
M
Minimizes
inimizes engine perturbation
perturbation
N
No
o need for new distribution infrastructure
infrastructure
N
New
ew fuel valued about same as oil. (Risk: oil price
price

can fall below cost to produce the new fuel).


fuel).

In the future, will gas stations stock some


In
some
new 3rd fu
fuel
el in addition gasoline and die
iese
sel?
l?
W
Would
ould open up many new engine possibilities.
possibilities.
N
New
ew fuel might command higher price than oil.
oil.
B
But
ut only if it provides a big advantage!
advantage!

Some possible new fuels

Oil insoluble biodegradable fuels


P
Polyols,
olyols, certain other polyoxygenates
polyoxygenates
M
Most
ost likely from biomass
biomass
Relatively
Relatively little is know about this option.
option.
option

Alcohols,
A
lcohols, other oil
oilssoluble
oluble oxygenates
oxygenate
M
Methanol,
ethanol, ethanol (GTL, CTL, or bio)
bio)
U
Unusual
nusual vaporization & energy density
density

Heavier oil
oilssoluble
oluble oxygenates (ffrro
om
mb
biio
om
ma
assss))
S
Similar
imilar to oil, any advantage to keep separate??
separate??

What is n
ne
eeded
ded fo
forr a 3rd Fuel to
beccome e
be
esstablis
blish
hed?


All stakeholders must consent


Vehicle makers
Fuel makers/distributors
Political leaders
Consumers

Mutual consent must persist for many years


 What could prompt such remarkably broad
and longlong-lived consensus?


What could prompt long


longlived
consensus on a new fuel?

All the stakeholders should derive some


benefit from the new fuels introduction.
There must be a significant advantage to the 3rd
fuel.
fuel
H
How
ow to share the benefit amongst all
all

shareholders?
shareholders?

Most
M
ost challenging for fuels which mix into oil.
oil.

Must be a clear adva


van
ntage in kee
eep
p
i

in

ng the

he

new fuel sepa


parr
ate.

Bo
B
oring
ring version of Dual Fuel:
Fuels are not miscible.
Use Fuel B only if Fuel A is not a
avvailable
ailable
(backup for unreliable distribution syysstem)
tem)

Photo of a diesel/CNG bus in New York City removed due to copyright restrictions.

Dual Fuel Compressed Natural Gas/Diesel


(since CNG is not available everywhere)

Fllexible
F
exible Fuel Vehicles:
Again, vehicle compensattiing
ng for unreliable fuel
distribution system

Photo of an E85 Chevrolet Avalanche at the Chicago Auto Show, February 8, 2006 removed due to copyright restrictions.

No compelling reason to keep E85 separate from the main gasoline stream

Interesting versions of DualFuel:


Performance Advantage from using both fuels
Adjust fuel mix to optimize performance.

Photo of ArvinMeritor test vehicle and Clean Air Power dual-fuel truck removed due to copyright restrictions.

ArvindMeritor bus
running diesel/H2 mix

Clean Air Power truck


running CNG/diesel mix

Many other promising dual fuel concepts, e.g. for SI, HCCI
Are benefits sufficient to drive wide introduction of a 3rd fuel?

Th
T
hird
ird fuel could be Electricity:
e.g. Plug
PlugIn Hybrids

Photo of plug-in hybrid cars removed due to copyright restrictions.

A pair of plugin hybrid electric vehicles are tested at Argonne's Transportation Technology R&D Center

Approaching a fork in the road

Huge chan
chang
ge
e in liquid fuel mix is coming:
T
Th
he
erre is no
ott e
en
no
ou
ug
gh
ho
oiill!! IItt iiss e
exxp
pe
en
nssiivve
e!!
C
Current
urrent system is not environmentally responsible.
responsible.
N
No
o one has energy security.
security.

Difficult
D
ifficult to predict which fuels will fill gap
gap
d
depends
epends on policy decisions (climate, security, economics)
economics)

Window of opportunity to add a 3rd fu


fuel
el at
at th
the pum
ump
p

Electricity (e.g. plug


plugiin
n hybrid)?. Ga
asse
ess???? P
Po
olla
ar liq
iqui
uids
ds??

??
A third oil
oilssoluble
oluble fuel could become widely ava
aiilla
abl
ble,
e, if
if

n
new
ew vehicle technology can deliver big advantages by
by
keeping the third fuel distinct.
T
The
he benefits of the new fuel are perceived and shared
shared
amongst the many stakeholders.

A taste of R&D

Mechanical Engineering, Nov. 2009:


Blending Diesel Fuel with Gasoline can
improve diesel engine fuel efficiency by an
average of 20%...the best tests achieved
average
achieve
53% thermal efficiency
This engine invented by Rolf Reitz was a dual
dual
fuel variant on HCCI

A proposed
proposed new engine: HCCI
(homogeneous charge compre
esssion
sion ignition)

Gasoline SI

Fuel/Air

Diesel

Air

HCCI

Fuel/Air

Premixed?

CI?

Ignition

Spark

Injection

Chemistry

Peak T

Hot: NOx

Hot: NOx

Cool

Temperature Distribution Strongly Affects


Ignition Chemistry
Temperature field (TDC)

1250 K
1200
1150
1100
1050

Side View

Top View

Basis:
Ba
Basis:
sis:

1000

2d calculation (pancake cylinder)


no chemistry
working fluid is pure air
thermal correction applied later

Mesh:

950
900
850
800

160 x 190 grid


coarser mesh in core
fine mesh in BL (60 m spacing)

750

Calcs using KIVA, by A. Amsden, LANL

Ch
C
hemistry
emistry can be quite complex
4500

Popular Kinetic
Models for Fuel Chemistry

Reactions
Number of Reactions

3500

1000

iso-octane
(Curran et al.)

800

3000

n-heptane
(Curran et al.)

2500

600

2000
400

hydrogen

1500
1000

methane
(GRIMech3.0)

propane
(Marinov)

200

n-butane
(ENSIC Nancy)

500
0

0
0

Carbon Number

Species
Number of Species

4000

PRF
(Curran et al.)

Ea
E
ach
ch chemical reaction has its own
(complicated) story
CH3 + H2CO CH4 + HCO
-11

se
ec
log(k) cc/molec s
c

-12

-13

-14

-15

-16

-17

Susnow et al., Chem. Phys. Lett. 1999


-18
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

1000/T

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

Wh
W
hat
at Speed
SpeedLoad Range c
ca
an
n this HCCI engine deliver?
Fuel =
n-heptane
C.R.=9.5
Figure removed due to copyright restrictions. See Figure 14 in Yelvington, Paul E., et al.
"Prediction of Performance Maps for Homogenenous-Charge Complression-Ignition Engines."
Combustion Science and Technology 176 (August 2004): 1243-1282.

Boost =
0.7 bar

Yelvington
et al.,
Combust.
Sci. Tech.
(2004).

Integrating engines performance over the driving cycle

Morgan Andreae
PhD thesis 2006

With this information,


can estimate mpg for new engine/fuel combo

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
2.650J/10.291J/22.081J

INTRODUCTION TO

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.

NUCLEAR WASTES AND

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

NUCLEAR WASTE

Locations of Spent Nuclear Fuel and


High-Level Radioactive Waste
Defense Complex

Clean-Up

Commercial

Spent Nuclear

Fuel

Support of

Nonproliferation

Initiatives, e.g.

Disposal of DOE

Foreign Research

Reactor Spent

Fuel

Disposition of

Naval

Reactor Spent

Nuclear Fuel

Source: The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, USDOE, CRWM, June 2008.
2

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

39 states with nuclear waste


Five DOE sites with nuclear waste
Spent-fuel pools
Dry cask storage

Photos of spent fuel pool and dry cask storage from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3

WASTE FORMS AND

PACKAGES

Source: The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, USDOE, CRWM, June 2008.

TRANSPORTATION CASK

Image by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

TIMELINE FOR NUCLEAR

WASTE DISPOSAL

1957

1982

1987

1992

Congress limited
characterization
to Yucca Mountain

National Academy
of Sciences (NAS)
supported deep
geologic disposal
Congress passes
Nuclear Waste
Policy Act

2002

2008

President recommended
and Congress approved
Yucca Mountain

Energy Policy
Act sets Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
standard process

2010

2017

DOE shuts
down Yucca
Mountain License
Application
DOE scheduled
to submit License
Application

DOE scheduled to begin


receipt of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive
waste (will not happened)

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Humboldt County

Eureka
County

Churchill
County

Storey

Elko County

Pershing
County
Lander
County

Washoe County

YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

Carson City
Douglas

White
Pine
County

Nye County
Lyon
Mineral
County

Esmeralda
County
Yucca
Mountain

Lincoln
County

Inyo
County
California

Clark
County

Nellis Air
Force Base
NV Test
Site

Las
Vegas

Counties designated as affected units of local government


100 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County
Located on Western boundary of the Nevada Test Site,
a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

Source: The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, USDOE, CRWM, June 2008.

YUCCA
MOUNTAIN
YUCCA
MOUNTAIN
SUBSURFACE
OVERVIEW
SUBSURFACE OVERVIEW
Surface

1,000
Feet

North Portal
South Portal

Repository
Level

Water
Table 1,000
Feet

Protective
Outer Barrier
Mechanical Support
Inner Barrier

Permanent Waste
Packages

Various Permanent
Waste Packages

Access Tunnel

Transporting
Containers by Rail
Remote Control
Locomotive
9

9

Image by U.S. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS

Volcanism!

Nominal!
Early defects!

Seismic!
Source: U.S. Department of Energy.

10

Source: The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, USDOE, CRWM, June 2008.

11

CANISTER PLACED INSIDE

WASTE PACKAGE

Source: The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, USDOE, CRWM, June 2008.

12

LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF REASONABLE

MAXIMALLY EXPOSED INIDVIDUAL AND FEATURES OF

NATURAL SYSTEM BELOW REPOSITY THAT LIMIT

MOVEMENT OF RADIONUCLIDES TO THAT LOCATION

Source: The Safety of a Repository


at Yucca Mountain, USDOE,
CRWM, June 2008.

13

Yucca Mountain: Predicted average

annual dose for 10,000 years

Fig. F-17 in Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain.
U.S. Department of Energy, October 2007, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D.

14

Yucca Mountain: Predicted median

annual dose for 1,000,000 years

Fig. F-17 in Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain.
U.S. Department of Energy, October 2007, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D.
15

POSTCLOSURE

PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Source: The Safety of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, USDOE, CRWM, June 2008.

16

NUCLIDES OF INTEREST

Appendix A in Bishop, William P., and Frank J. Miraglia, Jr. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management
Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1976, NUREG-0116/WASH-1248 Supplement 1.



17

NUCLIDES OF INTEREST, cont

Appendix A in Bishop, William P., and Frank J. Miraglia, Jr. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management
Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1976, NUREG-0116/WASH-1248 Supplement 1.

18

BUILDUP OF REACTION

PRODUCTS

Images removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 1, 2, 9-11 in Cohen, Bernard L. "The Disposal of Radioactive
Wastes from Fission Reactors." Scientific American 236 (June 1977): 21-31.

19

DISPOSAL OPTIONS

Sub-Seabed
Ice Sheets
Space
Deep Bore Holes
Geologic repositories for storing highly radioactive materials
have been chosen by the National Academy of Science in several
assessments versus the alternative means of storage or disposal
of highly radioactive materials.

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.



24

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

CRITERIA

The bases for determining the performance of a geologic


repository are established by regulations

The regulations establish numerical release limits that are


presumed to be

1)
Self consistent between regulating agencies





NRC within 5 km of repository


EPA beyond 5 km

2)
Based upon equivalency of different radionuclide risks with



regard to dose to man

3)
Consistent with other societal risks




Current basis is indirectly related to demonstrating a total
system performance probability of less than one chance in
10 of causing 1000 excess deaths per 10,000 years

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.

25

TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE OF

A GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY

In essence, the performance of a geologic repository system boils down

to a very detailed risk assessment of all of the physical and processes


that could occur that may result in releases of radionuclides to the
environment using predictions extrapolated to many thousands of years
into the future.
First, Scenario of Likely Events Must be Identified For the Chosen
Repository Location (Yucca Mountain)
Natural, High Probability
Natural Degradation of Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms
Movement of Radionuclides in Ground Water or Air
Natural, Low Probability
Volcanism
Earthquakes
Human Intrusion
Drilling
Mining
Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.

26

SUB-SYSTEM

INVESTIGATIONS

For Each of the Events, Predictive Models Must Be Developed


Incorporating the Following Sub-System Models:


Natural Barriers and Repository Inuences


-
Radionuclide Transport in Ground Water


-
Radionuclide Transport as Vapors and Gases


-
Water Inltration into Repository


Engineered Barriers and Waste Forms

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.


27

HIGH-LEVEL WASTE

DEFINITION: Wastes Arising from the Primary Decontamination


Steps in the Reprocessing of Spent Fuel
PRUEX Process:
Nitric Acid

Spent Fuel

Shearing

Dissolution

High-Level
Solvent
Extraction
Waste
Uranium +
Plutonium
Uranium
Uranium
Plutonium
Plutonium
Separation

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.


28

TUTORIAL: SOLVENT

EXTRACTION

Reaction:

UO 22 + (aq ) + 2NO 3 (aq ) + 2TB(org) UO 2 ( NO 3 )2 2TBP (org )
Pu 4+ (aq) + 4NO 3 ( aq) + 2TB( org) Pu ( NO 3 ) 4 2TBP ( org)

Results in a Distribution of Uranium and Plutonium:



concentration of i in organic phase
Di
concentration of i in the aqueous phase
and a Net Separation of Uranium and Plutonium from the Fission
Products:

D product
=
Dimpurity
Ds for Uranium and Plutonium are Much Higher Than the
Fission Products, Thus a Separation (large ) is Made at Greater
Than 99% in One Pass of Solvent Extraction.

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.

29

REPROCESSING CONTINUED

After Separation, Uranium is Separated from the Plutonium by


Chemically Changing the Aqueous Solution and Repeating the
Solvent Extraction

Approximately 1% of the Spent Fuel is Plutonium of Which

70% is Fissile (7 g/kg spent fuel)



ECONOMICS:



Cost of Reprocessing



Cost of Fuel Fabrication



Energy Value of Plutonium



Uranium Credit



~$1300/kg

~$ 350/kg

~$ 200/kg

~$ 60/kg

Therefore, Marginal to Uneconomic to Reprocess at Current

Facilities, Particularly When Uranium is Very Inexpensive


Fission Products and Actinide Wastes are Sent for Processing


Into Glass Logs for Permanent Disposal

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.

30

WHY GLASS?

Historical Perspective of High-Level Waste Glass:




Natural Analogs


High Durability (10X better than spent fuel in retaining
radionuclides


High Waste Loading (up to 30 wt% waste vs. 5% for spent fuel)


Predictability of Degradation

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.



31

NUCLEAR WASTE

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Image by U.S. Department of Energy.

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.


32

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT: ITS

CAPACITY, ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST,

AND ESTIMATED LIFETIME

Fig. 2-3 in Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, February 1991, OTA-O-484.

33

SOUTHERN NEVADA REGION

Source: Fig. 1-5 in "Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report." U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (February 2002): DOE/RW-0539-1.

34

INTERESTED PARTIES

Image by U.S. Department of Energy.

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.


35

OBSERVATIONS

Complex, First-of-a-Kind Project


Public Acceptance Dominates
Numerous Oversight Entities
Incredible Meetings Schedule
Fire Drills Dominate Strategic Planning
Radioactive Waste People are Competent and Hardworking

DOE Bureaucracy is a Major Challenge

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.



36

OBSERVATIONS (Continued)

The M&O Welcomed by DOE/Community


High Expectations
Large, High Visibility Tasks Being Assigned
M&O Identity and Team Integration is Good
TRW/Team Identity and Reputation Will Be
Applied
M&O is Viewed as Different
Broadly capable
Mission/goal oriented
Experienced/up-to-speed
Not a support contractor
Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.

37

EXPLORATORY STUDIES

FACILITY

NOTE:
This is pictorial only
and not drawn to scale.

Source: S.A. Simonson, Waste Technology Issues, undated.


Slide 7 in Petrie, Edgar H. "Exploratory Shaft Facility Alternatives Study - Resumption of Design Activities." U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, March 7, 1991.

38

CANISTERS

39

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

COUNTRYSIDE

40

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

COUNTRYSIDE

41

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

COUNTRYSIDE

42

YUCCAS AT YUCCA

MOUNTAIN

43

YUCCA MOUNTAIN COUNTRYSIDE,

METEOROLOGICAL STATION

44

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

COUNTRYSIDE

45

YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUNNEL

ENTRANCE, RAIL ENGINE

46

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

EXCAVATION PILE

47

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

ENTRANCE

48

YUCCA MOUNTAIN

ENTRANCE

49

YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUNNEL

50

YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUNNEL

51

YUCCA MOUNTAIN TUNNEL

52

NPR IN ACTION

53

TUNNEL HEATING

MEASUREMENT

54

TUNNEL HEATING MEASUREMENT,

VISITING ENGINEER

55

TUNNEL HEATING

MEASUREMENT

56

TUNNEL HEATING MEASUREMENT,

THERMAL PROBES

57

TUNNEL HEATING MEASUREMENT,

CHEMICAL PROBES

58

YUCCA MOUNTAIN WATER SUPPLY,

SYMBOL OF FEDERAL-STATE

RELATIONSHIP

59

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
2.650J/10.291J/22.081J

INTRODUCTION TO
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Prof. Michael W. Golay
Nuclear Engineering Dept.

Nuclear Fuel Cycle


Nuclear power plant
Supply

Disposal

Uranium fuel
elements

Spent fuel
elements

Mixed oxide
fuel elements

Fabrication of uranium Fabrication of mixed


fuel elements
oxide fuel elements
Enriched
uranium

Uranium

Interim storage of
spent fuel elements

Plutonium

Depleted
uranium

Conversion, enrichment
Natural
Barren uranium
ore

Uranium ore
dressing

Uranium
ore

Uranium ore
deposits

Reprocessing plant Conditioning plant


Uranium

Radioactive
waste

Waste treatment

EXPANSION OF
CIVILIAN NUCLEAR
POWER AND
PROLIFERATION

Pit

Repository

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

POTENTIAL PRODUCTS
FROM FISSION ENERGY

Electricity (current product)

Surry

Hydrogen


High temperature (700C) electrolysis

Very high temperature (700-900C) chemical reaction cycle

Industrial Process Heat (<900C)

Fertilizer
Desalinated Water


Distillation

Reverse osmosis

Desal

TYPES OF STEAM-ELECTRIC
GENERATING PLANTS
Turbine
Condenser

Fire

Water

Nuclear BWR
Steam

Steam

Turbine
Steam
generator

Reactor

Pump

Pump

Fossil fuel

Fuel

Steam

Fuel

Pump

Pump

Boiler

Generator

Condenser

Steam
Water

Fuel

Turbine

Generator

Liquid sodium

Generator

Condenser

Fuel

Turbine
Steam
generator

Condenser

Steam

Pump

Water

Steam
Pump
Reactor

Intermediate
heat exchanger

Pump

Pump

Nuclear PWR

Generator

Water

Pump

Pump

Nuclear LMFBR
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF FUEL MATERIALS


REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE (EQUILIBRIUM)
OPERATIONS OF 1,000 MWe LWR

Ore

U3O8

UF6

85,600

162

203

Mine

Conversion

Milling

Power reactor

Fuel

Enriched
UF6

38

63

Fabrication

Depleted uranium
tails storage*

Enriching UF6

High level
solid waste

Spent Fuel
36

150

Reprocessing

Low level wastes

Federal
Repository

50
Commercial burial
*Not required for reactor but must be stored safely;
has value for future breeder reactor blanket.
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

URANIUM

Abundance/Supply Duration [see IAEA Red Book]


 Centuries at current usage rates
 Decades at heavy usage rates
Composition
235

Natural Uranium

Where

Overview

238

0.007

0.993

0.03 - 0.05

0.97 - 0.95

New Research Reactor Uranium

0.20

0.80

Old Research Reactor Uranium

0.93

0.07

0.15 - 0.35

0.65 - 0.85

LWR Gas-Cooled Reactor


Uranium

Breeder Reactor Uranium

PLUTONIUM

Abundance Potentially Unlimited


Source: Neutron Absorption Reactions in Reactors

Isotope

Source Reaction

Bare Critical Neutron Source


Specific
Density (n/gs) Power (W/kg)
Mass (kg)

238

237

Np + n 238Pu +
242
Cm 238Pu +

10

2600

570

239

238

10

---

1.9

240

239

40

910

7.1

241

240

12

---

3.2

242

241

100

1700

0.7

Pu

Pu
Pu
Pu
Pu

U + n 239Pu + 2
Pu + n 240Pu
Pu + n 241Pu
Pu + n 242Pu

SALIENT PHYSICAL PARAMETERS


OF POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS
Isotope

Pa231

Th232

U233

U235

U238*

Np237

Halflife (y)

32.8k

14.1B

159k

700M

4.5B

2.1M

Neutrons
/sec-kg

nil

nil

1.23

0.364

0.11

0.139

Watts/kg

1.3

nil

0.281 0.00006 8E-06

0.021

Critical
mass** (kg)

162

infinite*

16.4

* Not explosive fissionable material


**Bare sphere

47.9

infinite*

59

SALIENT PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF


POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS (continued)
Pu238

Pu239

Pu240

Pu241

Pu242

Am241

88

24k

6.54k

14.7

376k

433

Neutrons
/sec-kg

2.67M

21.8

1.03M

49.3

1.73M

1540

Watts/kg

560

2.0

7.0

6.4

0.12

115

Critical
mass** (kg)

10

10.2

36.8

12.9

89

57

Isotope
Halflife (y)

**Bare sphere

SALIENT PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF


POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS (continued)
Am243

Cm244

Cm245

Cm246

Bk247

Cf251

7.38k

18.1

8.5k

4.7k

1.4k

898

Neutrons
/sec-kg

900

11B

147k

9B

nil

nil

Watts/kg

6.4

2.8k

5.7

10

36

56

Critical
mass** (kg)

155

28

13

84

10

Isotope
Halflife (y)

**Bare sphere

SIMPLE GUN-ASSEMBLED
NUCLEAR WEAPON

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Fissile Material is Uncompressed Large amounts of HEU needed


Assembly is Slow Pu explodes prematurely due to spontaneous fission and
other neutrons
10

SIMPLE IMPLOSION
NUCLEAR WEAPON
A

B
High explosive
surrounds core

Compressed
supercritical mass

Explosion

Implosion

Subcritical
mass
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Implosion Velocity >> Gun Velocity No premature explosion


Explosive compresses Fissile Core Less than a Mc required
11

NEUTRONIC PROPERTIES OF
NUCLEAR FUELS
NEUTRON ENERGIES
MeV
THERMAL
Parameter U233
U235
Pu239
U233
U235
0.123 0.2509 0.38
0.1
0.15

Pu239
0.1

2.226

1.943

2.085

2.45

2.3

2.7

2.50

2.43

2.91

2.7

2.65

3.0

n's captured
n's produced
n's produced
=
,
; =
; =
1 + absorption
fission
fission
Conversion Reactions:

U 238 + n U 239 + Np 239 + Pu 239 +


Th 232 + n Th 233 + Pa 233 + U 233 +
12

SELF-SUSTAINED CHAIN
REACTION
1 neutron for subsequent
fission, and
1 neutron + U 235 neutrons ( -1) neutrons for leakage,
parasitic absorption, and
conversion
Necessary Condition for Breeding: for each fissile nucleus consumed another is
produced via conversion of fertile material, e.g., a U235 nuclear is consumed
and replaced by production of a new Pu239 nucleus, via the reaction

n + U 238 U 239 +
Np 239 + +
Pu 239 + +
Conversion Ratio Number of new fissile nuclei produced as a result of
fission of a single nucleus

1 for breeding
Conversion Ratio :
< for burning
13

ROUTES TO WEAPONHOOD
ROUTE

PROSPECTS

Dedicated fuel cycle (U, Pu)

Preferred method to-date

Reactor fuel diversion (U, Pu)

India, N. Korea using research reactor fuel:


Attractive

Enrichment-related misuse or diversion


(U)

Unattractive

Fuel-fabrication related misuse or


diversion (U, Pu)

Unattractive

Reprocessing-related misuse or
diversion (Pu)

Unattractive

Breakout or abrogation (U, Pu)


Enrichment with U feedstock
Reprocessing reactor fresh*/spent fuel

Iran, N. Korea, Israel, Pakistan:


Very Attractive

Facility

Canisters

*HEU or MOX
14

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)


 Promise to use facilities in prescribed fashion
 Subject to seals, surveillance monitoring, inspections
 Subject to security for weapons-usable materials

Guard Force

15

PROLIFERATION RESISTANCE

Use of Materials Unattractive in Weapons


 High fizzle probability
 Radioactive
 Massive
 Self-heating

Long Diversion Time Durations


Easy Detection
Cumbersome Access

16

FISSILE MATERIAL
CONTROLS

Discouraging Diversion
 Safeguards (active means)
 Remote monitoring (cameras, detectors, portal monitors, data
transmission in real time)
 Seals and containers
 Guards, gates and locks
 Inspections
 Material inventories
 Proliferation resistance features (passive means), addition to fissile
materials other materials for
 Degradation of fission properties (i.e., reactor grade vs. weapons
grade Pu)
 Neutron production
 Heating
 Increase of handling difficulty
 Mass increase via shielding or extra material
 Radiation sources
17

FISSILE MATERIAL
CONTROLS, cont

Incentives
 Threats
 Protection
 Support and cooperation
Securing Reactor Fuel Supply and Takeback
 International fuel market competition and diversity within
NPT
 Controlled international fuel supply and takeback (including
wastes?)
 Dispersed network of nationally controlled fuel cycle
facilities

18

ENRICHMENT-BASED FISSILE
MATERIAL (U) ACQUISITION

Wish Enrichment > 20% 235U


Technologies (all use UF6)

Image of yellowcake uranium removed


due to copyright restrictions.

Footprint
Large

Energy Use
High

Emissions
Largest

Centrifuge (current)

Smaller

Lower

Small

Laser (MLIS) (future?)

Smallest

Lowest

Small

Gaseous diffusion (past)

Enrichment

Plants

Centrifuge

Molecular Laser Isotope Separation


19

ENRICHMENT-RELATED
U ACQUISITION SCENARIOS

Diversion
 Removal and dummy replacement of enriched-U canister, with
 Evasion of safeguards
Misuse
 Evasion of safeguards, falsification of operational records
 Increased mass throughput
 Increased operational duration
 Plant reconfiguration (quickly following inspection)
Breakout/Abrogation of NPT
 Previously accumulated inventory of natural or low-enriched
Uranium is feedstock
 Enrich feedstock to high concentration (93-97% 235U)
 Use previously declared facility, or
 Use previously constructed undeclared and unoperated
facility (Qom)
20

FUEL FABRICATION FACILITYBASED FISSILE MATERIAL (U, Pu)


ACQUISITION

Inputs: LEU (UO2), Pu (PuO2)


Fuel
Outputs: Reactor Fuel Bundles
Other Potential Fuel Forms: Metal, Carbide, Nitrate, Molten Salt

SCENARIOS
Diversion
 Removal and dummy replacement of fuel material or rod
bundles, with
 Evasion of safeguards
Breakout/Abrogation of NPT
 Capture of fuel material or rod bundles
UO2

21

SPENT FUEL REPROCESSINGBASED FISSILE MATERIAL (Pu)


ACQUISITION
Facility Separates Spent Fuel into Streams of
LaHague
 Plutonium
 Uranium
 Fission products and actinides
 Metallic wastes
Technologies
 Aqueous (UO2, MOX and HNO3 and TBP-based)
 PUREX (provides pure Pu, U streams)
 UREX, etc. (provides mixed fission product and Pu, U
streams)*
 Pyrochemical
 Metalic fuel, eletrolytic salt or metal, anode and cathodebased (provides stream of mixed* Pu and fission
products)
*Note: streams of mixed species can be separated chemically
22

REPROCESSING FACILITY
Pu ACQUISITION SCENARIOS

Diversion
 Removal and dummy replacement of Pu product, and
 Evasion of safeguards
Misuse
 Alteration of separation processes, and
 Evasion of safeguards, falsification of operational records
 Concentrated Pu removed via process streams
 Concentrated Pu left in process vessels for subsequent harvesting
Breakout/Abrogation of NPT
 Uses previously accumulated feedstock inventory of spent
reactor fuel
 Remove Pu
 Using previously declared facility
 Using previously constructed, undeclared facility
23

REGULATORY ACCEPTANCE
CRITERIA
Probability-Consequence Curve

Threshold line

* P-C curve proposed is parallel to Level 2 PRA Risk Assessment


24

PROSPECTS FOR GETTING


WEAPON

Dedicated Fuel Cycle


Reactor Fuel Diversion
Enrichment-Related Misuse or Diversion of U
Fuel-Related Misuse or Diversion of U, Pu
Reprocessing-Related Misuse or Diversion of Pu
Abrogation
 Reactor spent fuel
 Enrichment
 Reprocessing

25

SUMMARY

Large Scale Use of Nuclear Power is Inevitable Should Global


Warming Prove to be as Serious as it Appears
Risks of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation Will Grow with the Scale of
the Nuclear Enterprise
Proliferation Risks are Not Strongly Sensitive to Technological
Choices
Proliferation (i.e., Diversion and Misuse) Controlled Relying Heavily
upon Safeguards
Current International Safeguards Arrangements Could be Improved
Substantially via Greater Funding
Breakout (NPT Abrogation) Scenarios Dominate Proliferation Risks,
are Not Currently Well Protected Against
Management of Breakout Risks Demands New International
Arrangements for
 Regulation of proliferation risks
 Reactor fuel supply and take-back
26

NUCLEAR POWER
ENVIRONMENT COLLAGE

Photo of a tour group entering the north portal of


Yucca Mountain removed due to copyright restrictions.

Photos by Stephen Codrington on Wikimedia Commons, U.S. Department of Energy


Digital Photo Archive, and Charles Tilford on Flickr.
27

Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR)


Switchyard
Cooling towers
Containment structure

Steam line
Steam
Generator

Control rods

Generator

Pump
Turbine
Reactor
Pump

Cooling water
Condensor

Reservoir

Water
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Photo of Surry nuclear power plant has been removed due to copyright restrictions.

Adelaide
Desalination Plant

Photo of Adelaide desalination plant removed due to copyright restrictions.

Jubail Desalination Plant

Photo by jonrawlinson on Flickr.

Types of Uranium Deposits (tonnes)


Unspecified 3%
Unconformity-contact 12%

Others 8%

Metasomatic 12%

Sandstone 28%

Volcanic 4%
Intrusive 5%

Vein-type 6%
Quartz-Pebble
Conglomerate 6%

Hematite Breccia 16%

Total Discovered Resources: 5.46 million


Undiscovered Resources: 7.77 million
Unconventional Resources: ~7.3-22 million
Seawater: 4 billion
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: IAEA.

World Distribution of Uranium Resources


Australia

1,243,000 tU

22.7%

Kazakhstan

817,000

14.9%

Russia

546,000

10.0%

South Africa

435,000

8.0%

Canada

423,000

7.7%

United States

342,000

6.3%

Brazil

278,000

5.1%

Namibia

275,000

5.0%

Niger

274,000

5.0%

Others

941,000

17%

Total

5,469,000 tU

100%

Undiscovered resources: 7,771,100 tU


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: NEA/IAEA Group on Uranium, Uranium
2007: Resources, Production and Demand. See http://infcis.iaea.org/ for data on
1176 uranium deposits from 71 countries, total 19,193,456 tU.

Uranium Reserves vs. Grade


Original Reserves

Original Grade

<500

500 - 1,000

1,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 100,000

>100,000

Total

65

32

115

0.03 - 0.10

13

26

96

31

172

0.10 - 1.00

33

106

282

89

517

1.00 - 5.00

13

10

31

> 500

54

144

457

162

21

838

< 0.03

Grand Total

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: UDEPO.

MARCOULE FRANCE
ENRICHMENT FACILITY

Photos of the nuclear energy production and research


site in Marcoule, France removed due to copyright restrictions.

SPENT FUEL STORAGE


CANISTERS

Photos of various methods of spent fuel storage removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see, for example:
http://www.nucleartourist.com/systems/spfuel1.htm
http://environmentalheadlines.com/ct/2010/08/29/ct-paying-price-in-fight-over-nuclear-waste-storage/

ENRICHMENT
PLANTS

Photo of K-27 uranium enrichment plant in Oak Ridge, TN

K-25 Uranium enrichment plant,


1986, Knoxville, TN

removed due to copyright restrictions.

Photo by Frank Hoffman, U.S. Department of Energy.

Uranium Enrichment Process


Cascade
UF6 is enriched by
repeated processing
in centrifuges.

Cold trap for product


Enriched UF6 is cooled and collected
in a solid state, and then it is heated
and sent to the product cylinder vessel
in a gaseous state.

vessel
K-27 Uranium enrichmentHomogenization
plant,
Enriched
UF is heated

Feed Cylinder
(48Y cylinder)

Feed cylinder vessel Centrifuge


Natural UF6 is heated,
vaporized, and sent to
cascade.

Tails cylinder vessel


Depleted UF6 is cooled
and collected in a solid
state.

to a liquid state, homogenized,


and vaporized to be transformed
into product cylinders.

Product cylinder vessel


Enriched UF6 is cooled to a
solid state, and collected.

Product cylinder
(30B cylinder)
Enriched UF6 is cooled to
a solid state and colected.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

GASEOUS DIFFUSION
CASCADES
Gaseous Diffusion Stage
Barrier

Low pressure
Enriched
stream
Depleted
stream

High pressure
feed stream

Low pressure
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

URENCOS ALMELO CENTRIFUGE


ENRICHMENT PLANT

Photo of the centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in Almelo, the Netherlands


removed due to copyright restrictions.

37

COMMERCIAL-SCALE FACILITY FOR


CARBON ISOTOPE SEPARATION IN
KALININGRAD

Photo of the Molecular Laser Isotope Separation project at IMP-KIAE


removed due to copyright restrictions.

38

CENTRIFUGE CASCADES

Images by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Energy.

LWR Rod Bundle

Breeder Reactor
Rod Bundle

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Sagoff, Jared. "Computer
simulations help design new nuclear reactors." Argonne Now 3 (Spring 2008): 16-20.

Photo by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thousands of uranium
dioxide pellets fill these
nearly 15-foot-long zirconium
alloy fuel-rod tubes. Several
of these massive bundles sit
in the core of a commercial
nuclear reactor providing
intense heat from fission
reactions.

UO2 POWDER

Photo of uranium dioxide powder removed due to copyright restrictions.

41

LaHAGUE REPROCESSING
PLANT

Photos of the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in La Hague, France


removed due to copyright restrictions.

The French keep all of


the nuclear waste from
the last thirty years of
energy production in
one room, the storage
vault at La Hague.
42

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Lecture 20: Fusion as a Future Energy Source?

Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space


Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.

Dr. John C. Wright


MIT Plasma Science & Fusion Center
28 Oct 2010

Thanks to many people for contributions and


graphics!

Outline

Introduction
Fusion and Plasma Physics
Magnetic Confinement
Science and Technology Issues

History
Next Steps
Prospects: Fusion As An Energy Source

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Overview
Fusion 101
 Fusion is a form of nuclear energy
 Combines light elements (in our case, hydrogen isotopes) to form
heavier elements (He)
 Releases huge amount of energy (multiple MeV/nucleon)
 The reaction powers the stars and produces the elements of the
periodic table
 For 50 years, scientists and engineers have been working to
exploit the fusion reaction as a practical energy source.

Long Term Goals


 Produce baseload electricity in large power plants 1 GWe/unit

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

How Would We Get Useful Power From Fusion?

Superconducting
Magnets

Heat Exchanger
Generator

Fusing
Plasma
Turbine
Blanket/Shield
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

 At its simplest, a fusion reactor would be a firebox for


conventional electricity generation. (Heat could be used in
off-peak hours to make hydrogen for transportation.)

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Pros and Cons of Fusion


Pros
 Abundant, high energy density fuel (D + Li)
 No greenhouse gases (nor NOX, SOX, particulate emission)
 Safe no chain reaction, ~1 sec worth of fuel in device at any one time
 Minimal afterheat, no nuclear meltdown possible
 Residual radioactivity small; products immobile and short-lived

 Minimal proliferation risks


 Minimal land and water use
 No seasonal, diurnal or regional variation no energy storage issue
Cons
 We dont know how to do it yet (turns out to be a really hard problem)
 Capital costs will be high, unit size large (but with low operating costs)

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Challenges For Practical Fusion


 Plasma physics
 Create, confine and sustain hot plasmas that produce net energy
 Taming the plasma material interface
 Minimize heat and particle loads (consistent with 1)
 Develop materials and strategies to handle what remains
 Harnessing fusion energy
 Fuel cycle tritium breeding, inventory control
 Structural materials maintaining structural, thermal and electrical
properties under intense neutron bombardment
 Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Inspectability

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Public concerns and perceptions


Socio-Economic study group (Netherlands by Beurskens)
 Doesnt produce CO2 ?

80

 Is safe against major nuclear


accidents?

70

 Don't Know

30

60
50
40
20
10

 Fuel is abundant?

Nuclear
safety

Long term
waste
Yes

Contribute to
global warming
No

Fuel is
abundant

More research

Don't Know

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Opponents
 Dont like nuclear or large scale.
 Too much spending on fusion, could be better spent on other options.
 Fusion doesnt work and is always 50 years away.

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

How Are We Doing? By Some Measures We Are


Outpacing The Semiconductor Industry
Each step gets more difficult and more expensive
ITER 2020?

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Courtesy of Martin Greenwald. Used with permission.

Fusion and Fission work at opposite ends


The binding energy curve shows the nuclear energy available from fusion
Fe
The 'iron group' of isotopes
62
58
( 28
Ni, 26
Fe, 56
26Fe ) are the
most tightly bound, with
a binding energy of ~8.8
MeV per nucleon.

Yield from
nuclear fission

Elements heavier
than iron can yield
energy by nuclear
fission.

Yield from nuclear


fusion

Binding energy per nuclear


particle (nucleon) in MeV

Average mass
of fission fragments
is about 118.

50

100

150

235

200

Mass Number, A
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

10

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

DT Reaction Is Most Accessible Energetically


Alpha particle : 2He4
20 % of reaction energy
==> Confined
==> Plasma Self Heating
Neutron : 0n1
80 % of reaction energy
==> Not Confined
==> Energy output and
Tritium production

Tritium breeding
0n

1+

3Li

= 1T3 + 2He4

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

(Net Reaction is 1D2 + 3Li6 = 2 2He4)

11

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Tritium Breeding Would Be Required


 Deuterium is plentiful ~ 0.015% of hydrogen
 Take 1 gallon water, extract D, fuse energy equivalent to
300 gallons gasoline
 Tritium decays rapidly, must be manufactured
 Breeding reaction: 0n1 + 3Li6 = 1T3 + 2He4 (+ Energy)
 Overall, tritium is a catalyst for:
Energy)

2
1D

+ 3Li6 = 2He4 + 2He4

(+

 Li is plentiful in the earths crust


 Tritium breeding ratio (TBR=tritons/neutron) must be bigger than
1 to make up for geometrical limitations and natural decay
 There are endothermic reactions, for example 0n1 + 3Li7,
which produce multiple neutrons.
 TBR ~ 1.05-1.1 is believed achievable.
12

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

The Probability Of D-T Fusion Is The Greatest When The Nuclei


Have About 100 Kev Of Kinetic Energy
10-24

 Even at the optimum

10-26
Cross-Section (m2)

energy, the nuclei are


much more likely to
scatter elastically than to
fuse!

 Multiple scatterings
thermalize the constituent

Coulomb Scattering
D - T Fusion
D - D Fusion

10-28

10-30

particles.
 At the energies involved,

10-32

matter becomes fully

10

100

1000

Deuteron Energy (keV)

ionized plasma.

10 keV ~ 100,000,000 oC
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

13

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

The Physics Of The Fusion Reaction And Elastic


Scattering Leads Us Directly To The Need For
Confined Plasmas
 Because scattering is much more likely, nuclei must be confined for many
interaction times.
 These multiple scatterings thermalize the constituent particles.
 At the energies involved, matter becomes fully ionized plasma.

 In all senses, we can think of plasmas as a 4th state of matter

In plasma physics, we measure temperature in eV


1 eV = 11,600 K

10 keV 100 million degrees


(Typical fusion plasma temperature)

14

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Plasmas Are Ubiquitous In Nature

 Most of the visible universe is


composed of plasma

Photos from NASA/MPIA, Mircea Madau on Wikimedia


Commons, Javier Gimnez and Paul Jonusaitis on Flickr.

15

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Essential Properties Of Plasmas

 Very hot (minimum 5 eV; 60,000K)


 Electrons stripped from atomic nuclei
 Excellent electrical conductivity
 Significant interaction with electromagnetic fields and radiation
 Quasi-neutral
 But small deviations lead to strong plasma-generated electric and
magnetic fields
 The quest for controlled fusion energy lead to the rapid development of
the science of plasma physics
 Important for understanding of astrophysics, space sciences, etc.

16

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Confinement: A Simple Analogy


 Our goal: get the required
temperature with the least
amount of heating power
 Energy confinement time is the
ratio of stored energy to
heating rate.
 In a fusion reactor that heat
would come from the fast
particles (charged, so they are
confined by the magnetic field)

E (sec)

Total stored energy ( Joules)


Heating rate (Watts)
17

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Confinement Requirements For Fusion:


The Lawson Criterion
Fusion Power = n D nT Rate per ion Energy per reaction

Fusion Power n 2 F(T )


Loss Power = Confinement Loss + Radiation Loss
Loss Power =

3nT

+ n 2 R(T )

For steady state, Fusion Power = Loss Power

n 2 F (T ) =

3nT

+ n 2 R(T )

n E F(T ) = 3T + n E R(T )
n E =

3T
= G( T )
F(T ) R(T )

 A quantitative statement of
the requirements for good
confinement and high
temperature

18

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Break-Even And Ignition Curves In Lawson Space

 The ignition curve is


defined in an analogous
manner but just use
charged-particle energy
 Engineering
considerations suggest
practical device has ne
~ 1020/m3 with E ~ 5-10
sec
 Next step is ITER, a
burning plasma
experiment.
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

19

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Approaches To Fusion Energy


 Gravitational Confinement (300 W/m3)


In a deep gravitational well, even fast


particles are trapped.

Very slow:
1010 years

E ~ 106 years, burn-up time =

Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space


Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.

 Inertial Confinement (1028 W/m3)




Heat and compress plasma to ignite


plasma before constituents fly apart.

Works for the H-bomb

Unlikely (IMHO) this will lead to practical


energy source.

Courtesy of Lawrence Livermore National


Laboratory. Used with permission.

 Magnetic Confinement (107 W/m3)




Uses the unique properties of ionized


particles in a magnetic field
Image by Argonne National Laboratory on Flickr.

20

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Gyro-motion Of Charged Particles Enables


Magnetic Confinement
Gyro-radius =

Gyro-frequency

mV c

qB

c =

mT
B

eB
mc

At B = 5T, T = 10keV

Electrons
_

 e = 0.067 mm
 i = 2.9 mm

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

 R/ i > 1,000
 e = 8.8 x 1011 rad/sec (waves)
 i = 4.8 x 108 rad/sec (FM radio)

ions

Ionized particles are deflected by


the Lorentz force and bent into
circular orbits.

21

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

In The Simple Example Shown,


There Is No Confinement At All
Parallel To The Magnetic Field

Electrons
_

ions

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

 At the temperatures
involved, ions are moving at
over 1,000 km/s
 For a practical device, the
end losses must be
eliminated

Image by Kieff on Wikimedia Commons.

Voila! Eliminate the ends.

A torus is a unique topologically. It is the only 3D shape where a


non-singular vector field can be tangent to the surface everywhere.
22

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Why Is The Scientific Problem So Difficult?


Many body problem need statistical treatment
Basic description of plasma is 7D f(x, v, t), evolution determined
by non-linear Boltzman equation + Maxwells equations

f
+ v f +
t
convection
in space

Particle sources
q
m

[E + v B ] v f = C( f ) + S( f )
convection in
velocity space

Collisional relaxation toward


Maxwellian in velocity space

 Intrinsic nonlinearity (plasma distributions can easily generate E and B fields)


 High dimensionality
 Extreme range of time scales wall equilibration/electron cyclotron O(1014)
 Extreme range of spatial scales machine radius/electron gyroradius O(104)
 Extreme anisotropy mean free path in magnetic field parallel/perp O(108)
 Sensitivity to geometric details
23

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

With Closed-form Solution Impossible: Computer


Simulation Has Been A Key Element Of The MFE
Program

Image removed due to copyright


restrictions. Please see Fig. 12 in

<- Microturbulence modeling


Fluid macro stability ->

Lynch, V. E., et al. "Numerical Tokamak


Turbulence Calculations on the CRAY T3E."
Proceedings of the 1997 ACM/IEEE Conference on
Supercomputing. ACM, 1997. ISBN: 9780897919852.

Curtesy of Scott Parker. Used with permission.

 Simulations require many grid points (/R<<1) and good time resolution (A/E,
C/E << 1)
 Plasma physics was perhaps the earliest (unclassified) science program to make
use of supercomputing and data networks
 MFECC founded at LLNL1974, MFEnet 1975 NERSC (LBNL), NLCF (ORNL)
 Good success in creating parallel algorithms
 Strong interactions with experiments are required to validate physical models
Current Drive modeling with 4.6 GHz lower-hybrid waves

24

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Progress Is Paced By Hardware And Algorithm


Development
1016

Memory (Bytes)

1014

Burning Plasma
Integrated Simulation
GK Full Torus
(adiabatic electrons)

Virtual Disruption
Disruption
Virtual
GK Full Torus
(w/ electron dynamics)

Virtual Edge

1012
GK Flux
Tube

1010
1010

1012

1014

1016

Computational Speed (Flops)


NERSC (1995)

NERSC (1997)

NERSC (2002)

NLCF (2006)

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

25

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Diagnostics - Measurement And Control


 An amazing range of sophisticated technologies are employed for
diagnostics progress has been phenomenal
 All main parameters in space & time:
 Te, Ti, ne, magnetic field, current profile, plasma position, shape
 All energy and particle inputs
 external heating systems (RF waves, beams)
 fusion heating processes (alphas - e.g. fast ions)
 gas, beam and pellet fuelling
 Causes of energy, particle loss/performance limits
 impurities, neutrals, turbulence, instabilities
 All energy and particle loss paths:
 photons and particles direct from core, and neutrons
 power and particles reaching plasma facing components (divertor)
26

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Some Of The Engineering Challenges

 Mechanical and thermal stresses


 Proximity to high neutron flux
 Material Issues
 First Wall
Power handling
Erosion high energy and
particle fluxes
No tritium retention

Curies/Watt (Thermal Power)

 Very large, high-field, superconducting magnets

1
Nuclear Fission
Light Water
Reactor

10-2
10-4

Fusion
Vanadium
Alloys

10-6

Fusion
Ferritic Steel
Level of Coal Ash

10-8

Fusion
Silicon Carbide
Composites

10-10

 Structural components low activation required


 Blanket/Shield

10

1000
100
Years After Shutdown

1000
0

Courtesy of Marc Beurskens. Used with permission.

 Protect coils from neutron flux


 Need tritium breeding ratio above 1
 Heating and current drive sources
 Steady state high availability required

27

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Historical Interlude
 <1950: Program grew out of
Manhattan project (+UK+USSR)
 Magnetic confinement
concept developed
 1950: Tokamak invented
(Sakharov & Tamm)
 1951: Stellarator invented
(Spitzer)

 1957: Declassification
 Problem turned out to be
harder and of less military
value than anticipated

Please see Lawson, J. D. "Some Criteria for a Useful


Thermonuclear Reactor." U.K. Atomic Energy Research
Establishment, December 1955, GP/R 1807.

 1958: Geneva conference 1st


Worlds Fair of fusion research
 1958-1968 V. Slow progress

28

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Historical Interlude (2)


 1965: USSR claims for T3
tokamak 1000 eV
 1969: Confirmed by Peacock,
Robinson et al.
 1970s: The tokamak age
(dozens built worldwide)
 1978: PLT achieves 6 keV with
Neutral Beam Heating

 1982-1983: Enhanced
confinement regimes
discovered
 1983: Alcator-C reaches
Lawson number for
confinement

Image remove due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 4 in Greenwald, M., et al. "Energy
Confinement of High-Density Pellet-Fueled Reactors
in the Alcator C Tokamak." Physical Review Letters
53 (July 1984): 352-355.

29

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Historical Interlude (3)


 >1990:
 First DT experiments
in JET (EU) and
TFTR (US)
 Advanced diagnostic
systems deployed,
providing
unprecedented
measurements
 Simulations advance
and provide accurate
predictions of some
nonlinear
phenomena
 The return of the
Stellarator

Photos of the Large Helical Device, National Institute for


Fusion Science, Japan removed due to copyright restrictions.

30

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

A Range of Toroidal Magnetic Configurations


is Being Studied Worldwide

Photos removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see (clockwise from top left): Alcator C-Mod,
MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, USA; Joint European
Torus, EFDA; Wendelstein 7-X, Max Planck Institut fr Plasmaphysik,
Germany; Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research
(KSTAR), National Fusion Research Institute, Korea; JT-60, Naka Fusion
Institute, Japan; Large Helical Device, National Institute for Fusion Science,
Japan; DIII-D, General Atomics, USA; National Spherical Torus Experiment,
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, USA.

31

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

The Next Step: ITER


 ITER (International
Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor)
 Mission: Demonstrate the
scientific and technological
feasibility of fusion energy
 China, EU, India, Japan,
Korea, Russia, US

 Site: Cadarache, France


 Construction ~2007-2015
 Construction cost ~ $10B
 Political origin: 1985
Geneva summit
Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

32

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

ITER Site: Adjacent To Existing Lab

Pfusion

500MW

> 10

Pulse

500 - 2500s

Major Radius 6.2m


Minor Radius 2.0m
Plasma Current 15MA
Toroidal Field 5.3T
Heating/Current Drive
Power
73MW

Copyright Altivue.com. Used with permission.

ITER

JET
ASDEX-U
COMPASS-D

4
Major Radius (m)

Normalized Confine ent (Measured)

ITER Represents A Substantial Scale-Up

Graph comparing normalized confinement of multiple fusion


reactors has been removed due to copyright restrictions.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

34

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Major Scientific And Technological Issues For ITER


 Scaling of edge pedestal and plasma transport with normalized size
 An ITER scale experiment can operate with i/R < 10-3
 Confinement and thermalization of fusion alpha particles
 Fast particles can drive instabilities
 Performance limiting macroscopic instabilities
 Includes operating limits and control strategies
 Disruption avoidance and mitigation
 Current driven instabilities possible Achilles heel
 Power and exhaust
 Wall interactions and tritium retention
 Neutron effects and tritium breeding

35

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

On Beyond ITER
 (Ambitious) plans are in place to have a demonstration power
reactor on line by 2035
In parallel with ITER

 US 35 year plan (2003)


 EU fast track plan (2004)

 IFMIF: International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility


 Would use beam-generated neutrons to qualify small samples
of materials
 CTF: Component Test Facility
 Small size, low fusion power, driven DT plasma-based device
 For testing components like blankets or divertor modules
 DEMO ~2035-2040
 Prototype commercial reactor(s) (Probably several)
 Higher power density and much higher duty factor than ITER
 Commercial Reactor ~2050

36

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Magnetic Fusion Energy Can Be Developed At The Cost, But Not


The Schedule, Anticipated In 1980.

Graph showing U.S. funding for magnetic fusion research over


time removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see slide 5
in Goldston, Rob. "The Development Path for Magnetic Fusion
Energy." Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, 2006.

37

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

How Would Fusion Fit Into The World Energy Picture?

Graph illustrating various scenarios for world energy consumption


removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 1 in Schmidt,
J. A. "Socio-Economic Aspects of Fusion." PPPL-4010, October 2004.

38

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Some Cost Comparisons For Energy Sources


20
lower

100%

coe(cents/kWh)

upper
15

Decommissioning
O&M cost

80%

Capital cost
replacement

60%

10

Capital cost
plant
40%

5
20%

Capital cost
fusion core

0%

0
CCGT

Fission

Wind

Fusion

Combined Cycle Gas Turbine estimate Includes projected fuel price


increases but no carbon tax.
Wind is near term technology but with no standby or storage costs.
Based on data from Projected Costs of
Generating Electricity IEA, 1998 Update.
39

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Summary

 Fusion holds out the possibility of a safe, environmentally


benign power source
 Fusion has cost ~$30B worldwide and may cost another
$30B to prove. Too few inexhaustible options not to try need more funding for all possible sources.
 The science and technology are extremely challenging
 But steady progress has been made
 Were poised to take a major step, an experiment to
demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of
fusion energy

40

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

References

 H. Bethe, Energy Production in Stars, Phys. Rev. 1939


 The FIRE Place, D. Meade, http://fire.pppl.gov
 ITER, http://www.iter.org
 PSFC, http://www.psfc.mit.edu
 The U.S. Fusion R&D Program, PCAST, Executive Office of the
President of the United States,1995
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast95- fusion.pdf

41

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

The End

42

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

What Are The Worlds Energy Options


Nothing obviously easy
 Burning fossil fuels (currently 80%) climate change + pollution:
must see if large-scale CO2 capture and storage is possible, and can be
made safe and cheap
 Nuclear fission safety, proliferation concerns (but cannot avoid if we
are serious about reducing fossil fuel burning; at least until fusion
available)
 Biofuels can this be made carbon neutral? Land and water use issues
 Solar - need breakthroughs in production and storage
 Wind, Tidal storage and land use issues, but could fill niche
 Fusion environmentally benign, but success is not 100% certain
 With so few good options, we should aggressively pursue all alternatives
Note: Worlds energy costs approaching $10 Trillion/year
44

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Why Are Cost Estimates Similar? (Except for Fuel)

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 4 in Maisonnier, D., et al. "Annexe
6: Plant Model C." A Conceptual Study of Commercial
Fusion Power Plants. Final Report of the European Fusion
PPCS, April 13, 2005, EFDA-RP-RE-5.0.

45

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Blanket

Lithium compound

Li

Deuterium

Not to Scale !
T

Plasma

Primary fuels

Vacuum

DTn
DT, He

Helium (non-radioactive ash)

Fuel processing
Lithium

4He

4He

4He

4He

Turbine

Heat exchanger

Generator
Steam generator
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

46

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 7 in Cook, I., et al. Safety and
Environmental Impact of Fusion. April 2001, EFDA-S-RE-1.

47

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 12 in Maisonnier, D., et al.
A Conceptual Study of Commercial Fusion Power
Plants. Final Report of the European Fusion
PPCS, April 13, 2005, EFDA-RP-RE-5.0.

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Need To Increase Power And Pulse Length

1500 MWDemonstration

ITER

Reactor

500 MW

15 MW

JET

Resistive-pulsed

Superconducting

Tore Supra

48

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

ITER Construction Schedule

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

49

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Magnetic Confinement In Toroidal Devices

Bt
B

+++++

_ _E__

E
B
drift

 Solution 1: Torus solves the end-loss


problem
 Problem 2: In a simple toroidal field, particle
drifts lead to charge separation

Bp

Hoop
Stress
Bt

 Solution 2: Add poloidal field, particles


sample regions of inward and outward drift.
 Problem 3: Hoop stress from unequal
magnetic and kinetic pressures.

Bp

Jt
Bt
Bz

 Solution 3: Add vertical field, to counteract


hoop stress.
 Magnetic confinement experiments are
variations on this theme.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

50

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Plasma Is Confined On Closed Nested Flux Surfaces

Tan, B.-L., and G.-L. Huang. "Neoclassical Bootstrap Current in Solar Plasma Loops." Astronomy & Astrophysics 453
(2006): 321-327. Reproduced with permission (c) ESO. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20054055

 Magnetic field lines are helical and lie on closed, nested surfaces
flux surfaces, = const.
 Vertical B drift averages to zero as particle follows helical field
 To lowest order, particles are stuck on flux surfaces
51

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Two Strategies To Create This Configuration


Stellarator

Tokamak

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

 Poloidal field from current in


the plasma itself.

 Poloidal field from external coils

 Axisymmetric good
confinement

 Non-axisymmetric good
confinement hard to achieve

 Current is source of instability

 More difficult to build

 Intrinsically steady-state

52

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Progress Has Been Made By Dividing Up The Problem


Principally By Time Scale

CYCLOTRON PERIOD

ce-1

10-10

ci-1

10-8

SLOW MHD
INSTABILITY,
ISLAND GROWTH

MICROTURBULENCE

10-6

ELECTRON TRANSIT, T

10-4

10-2

ENERGY CONFINEMENT, E
CURRENT DIFFUSION

100

PARTICLE COLLSIONS, C

102

104

SEC.

GAS EQUILIBRATION
WITH VESSEL WALL

FAST MHD INSTABILITY,


SAWTOOTH CRASH

RF:
wave-heating
and current-drive

Gyrokinetics:
micro-turbulence

Extended MHD:
device scale stability

53

Transport Codes:
discharge timescale

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Topical Science Areas


 MHD Magneto-hydrodynamics (Mostly fluid description )
 Basic plasma equilibrium is well understand
 Macroscopic stability, operating limits, performance limits
 Transport and confinement (primarily kinetic description)
 Collisional transport understood (and small)
 Transport dominated by turbulence

 Wave-particle interactions
 Heating, current drive, fusion alpha confinement
 Boundary physics
 Edge turbulence and transport (collisional plasma)
 Plasma-wall interactions

54

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Alcator C-Mod Tokamak Experiment at MIT


One of three major
fusion facilities in the
U.S. MFE program
Total staff ~ 100
including ~ 30+
graduate students
training the next
generation of scientists
and engineers

Research sponsored by U.S. Department of


Energy
55

We collaborate with
more than 40 other
universities and labs:
domestic and
international
SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Plasma Physics: Prediction Via Advanced Simulations


Plasma physics is a many body problem requires statistical treatment
Basic description of plasma is the Boltzmann equation
The equation of motion in a 6 Dimensional phase space

f(x, v, t)

Intrinsic nonlinearity
Extreme range of time scales O(1014) and spatial scales O(104)
With closed-form solution impossible, computer simulation has been a key
element of the MFE program

Plasma physics was perhaps the earliest (unclassified) science program to


make use of supercomputing and data networks
MFECC, MFEnet founded at LLNL 1974 NERSC, ESnet (LBNL), NLCF
(ORNL)
Strong interactions with experiments are required to validate physical models

56

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Plasma Turbulence Simulation

 Ion gyro-scale turbulence


 Note period of linear growth
 Saturation via self-generated zonal flows
57

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Wave Particle Physics

Courtesy of Fred Jaeger. Used with permission.

 Problem: Solve wave equation in presence of plasma dielectric


 Weakly nonlinear problem
 Challenge is to calculate plasma response
 Plasma response is non-local (requires solution of integral equation)
58

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

Boundary Physics

 Problem: The
interaction of the very
hot boundary plasma
(only 50,000K) with
material objects
 While plasma is much
cooler at edge, heat
fluxes can easily
damage wall

 Involves turbulent
transport + atomic
physics + properties of
materials

Courtesy of Ricardo Maqueda. Used with permission.

59

SE - L17 Fusion Energy

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

CarbonManagement

Hussein Abdelhalim

Mark Artz

Major Carbon Emission Factors

Electricity
Power generation
Fossil Fuels
Electricity and heatingmakeup nearly 50% of carbon
emissions at 3.6 giga
gigatons
tons carbon dioxideper
dioxideper year
year

Source: Moniz, Ernest J., et al. "The Future of Natural Gas: An


Interdisciplinary Study." Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011.

Major Carbon Emission Factors

GHG Emissions Profiles for Select Countries - 2005*


Percent, Gigatons CO2e
100% =

Transportation

2.4

3.1

1.8

7.0
0

0
34

Production

Deforestation and
land-use change

Syngas
Tar Sands

62
83

21
5
29

21

Consumption
Consumption

Agriculture
Transportation
Industry and waste
Electricity and heat

Vehicles
Cars, Planes

20
6
7
5
Brazil

40
4
2
5
6
Indonesia
India

* Carbon sinks are not shown

7.2
6
29

18

1.3
0
22

26

45

47

49

China

United
States

Japan

1.0
0
3

20
17

54

Germany

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: UNFCCC, WRI, IEA, EPA, McKinsey analysis.
Adapted from Exhibit 3 in Creyts, Jon et al. "Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
How Much at What Cost?" U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative, McKinsey &
Company, December 2007.

Inthe U.S. transportationaccountsfor nearly 30%of


carbonemissionsat2gigatons per year.

Discussion Areas
Facilitate a class discussiononthe followingtopics:

Electricity Generation

Driving Individual Behavioral Changes

Discussion Guidelines
Appliedloosely
No more than 3 comments per participant

Try to limit length of response to 3 minutes

ElectricityGeneration
Wind
Solar

Geothermal

Nuclear
Nuclear

Hydroelectric

Photos by Martin Pettitt and Rory D on Flickr, Chmee2 and Eclipse.sx on


Wikimedia Commons, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Question
Whatincentives should weuseto allow these
technologiesto compete with coalandother carbon
emittingelectricity p
emittingelectricity
productionmethods?
roductionmethods?

Goal
Develop a global strategy to allow carbon free sources to
compete.

Considerations
EconomicImpact
Morecostly electricity
Climate policy during a
recession?

Loss of Natural
Natural

Advantage

Countries with large


coal reserves
U.S., China, India

Pressureto moveto
unregulated countries

DevelopaGlobal Strategy

1.

United States

2.

6.

Large coal dependence

7.

Illinois

Large coal reserves

Consumes large amounts


of natural gas producing
oil from tar sands

Sasol in South Africa


4.

Cheap energy

Canada

80% nuclear
nuclear electricity
electricity

China

Developingworld

France

3.

Recession
Large coal reserves

5.

Syngas liquid fuel


production
71milliontons of carbon
emissions

ClassGenerated Ideas

1.

United States

KyotoProtocol

Commit toa global plan

Government incentives for renewable

2.

France

Adoption of more nuclear facilities

Financing more facilities


Slowlyadd a few plants

Combination of financing and
subsidizing

3.

4.

China

Keepcoal cheapbecause of rising
economic situation

Loose cap&trade

Subsidizing renewable bygovernment
Illinois

Budget towards R&D towards clean coal
technologies

Promote use of coal but mitigate its
effect

5.

Developing world

Want clean energybecause most
averse totemperature changes

Clean development mechanism
of KyotoProtocol

Direct investment of projects

6.

Canada

Look intonuclear and carbon
sequestration tomitigate
sequestration
tomitigate effects
effects
of carbon emissions

7.

Sasol in South Africa



N/A

OverallPicture:

Increased regulations: federal


vs. local governments

Time scale, triggersand


involvement

Driving Individual Behavioral Changes

Courtesy of Mark Weinsten. Used with permission.

Source: http://prometheuscomic.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/capandtradeoff/

Individual CO2 Emission Contribution

Recall Carbon Footprint Quiz from Homework 2

Average annual contribution is 18 to 24 tons of CO2 per person

Source: Homework 2Solutions, Alex Shih

Results from Ecological Footprint Calculator courtesy of Earthday.org. Used with permission.

Graph by Carbon Mitigations Initiative, Princeton University.

A portfolio ofoptions areneeded!




Source: Lecture 17, Prof. Green

Question
Whatincentives should beused toencourage
individualsandbusinessestoreduce their carbon
footprint?
Goal

Develop a portfolio of options that will drive individual


individual

behavioral changes to reducing carbon emissions.

Source: Moniz, Ernest J., et al. "The Future of Natural Gas: An


Interdisciplinary Study." Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011.

Considerations

Major contributors to large amounts of carbon produced by


individuals
Transportation
If yourcargets 25mpg and youreduce yourannual driving from

12,000miles to 10,000miles, yyouwill


ouwill save 1800pounds
1800pounds of CO2.

CO2.
If yournewcargets 40mpg instead of 25, youwill reduce carbon
emissions by 3300pounds.

Homeappliances, heating, and cooling


If youlive in a cold climate and yousuperinsulate yourwalls and
ceilings, youcan save 5.5tons of CO2peryear.

Source: www.powerscorecard.org/reduce_energy.cfm

DevelopaGlobal Strategy

1.

Howshouldcitiesencourage their
residentsto use public transit?

2.

Howshouldthe government
encourage itscitizensto purchase
hybridvehiclesandother
appliances/electronicsthat reduce
carbon emissions?

3.

Howshouldconsumersbecome more
educatedon home energy

conservation?

4.

What are some actionswe can take


today to reduce carbon emissionsthat
have personalfinancialincentives?

5.

Can a government impose an


individualcarbon rationing system
that isfair? If so, howwouldit work?

6.

What incentivesshouldgovernments
give to large corporationsfor their
energy conservation practices?

7.

Discussother optionsandstrategies
not presentedhere.

ClassGenerated Ideas

1.

2.

3.

How shouldcities encourage their residents touse


public transit?

Price increases

Parking

Fuel

Decrease public transportation costs

Public transportation reliability

ETA

Range of stops

Drivingrestrictions

Population distributions

Parkingcenters for public transportation
How shouldthe government encourage its citizens
topurchase hybridvehicles andother
appliances/electronics that reduce carbon
emissions?

Stricter emission standards

Reducedimport tariffs for hybrids
How shouldconsumers become more educatedon
home energy conservation?

Standard for comparison

Independent

4.

What are some actions we can take today to


reduce carbon emissions that have personal
financial incentives?

Timers andthermostats

Off vs. standby

5.

Can a government impose an individual


carbon rationingsystem that is fair? If so, how
wouldit work?

Effectively higher taxes


Cost association

6.

What incentives shouldgovernments give to


large corporations for their energy
conservation practices?

Rewards, insteadof penalties, for energy
conservation (i.e. lower tax bracket)

Cost association

7.

Discuss other options andstrategies not


presentedhere.

Stricter buildingcodes toadhere toat
the beginning

Other GHGs like fluorocarbons (i.e.
HFCs andCFCs)

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Biomass Part I: Resources and uses

William H. Green
Sustainable Energy
MIT
November 16, 2010

Sustainable Energy: Big Picture


People want electricity, transport, heat
Now use:
coal
oil
gas
Major Challenges:
CO2 to atmosphere: climate change
Run short on oil? Security, price
Price: most people in the world cant
afford the energy they want

Possible Solutions
CO2: switch from conventional coal

Efficiency: lighting, cooling?


Coal  gas combined cycle
Non-emitting power sources
CO2 underground sequestration
Burn Biomass instead of coal

Oil running out: Efficiency, Alternatives

Vehicle efficiency, urban planning


Batteries or natural gas for land transport
Coal, tar, gas  synfuels with CO2 sequestration
Biomass  liquid fuels

Price?
Can Biomass energy be cheap??

History, overview of biomass


Largest historical energy source
Largest current renewable energy source
Many historical examples of resource depletion
England, Easter Island deforestation
Sahel desertification
Whale oil

Scalability and land use resources are a challenge


Possible better ways:
Waste from agriculture, forestry
Energy crops / algae on waste land

Solar insolation

Maps of insolation at the top of the atmosphere and the


Earth's surface removed due to copyright restrictions.

Image by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art.

Solar constant: 1366 W/m2


Measured outside the earths
atmosphere
Varies with seasons

On planets surface effected by


geometry and filtering.
Photosynthetically active
region (PAR):
~ 400-700 nm

Photosynthesis ~ 1% efficient
Energy stored <3 MW / (km)2 arable land

Biomass: The Source


Photosynthesis stores ~300 EJ/yr as
biomass energy
Human energy use ~400 EJ/yr
Carbon cycle: plants die, decay to CO2
In fertile areas ~ 10-5 EJ/(km)2/yr
Requires ~250 kg H2O to grow 1 kg biomass

Earths total land surface ~108(km)2

For large scale biomass energy NEED


LOTS OF LAND (even much more than
solar) and WATER
If you have spare land and fresh water,
relatively inexpensive to grow and harvest
(e.g. much less capital than solar!)

What is biomass? Properties


Solid carbon-based fuel (like coal)
H:C ~1.5 , O:C ~1
Significant metals, S, N
Minor elements come from soil
Nitrogen fertilizers often required

Wet: about 50% water before drying


Low energy density ~9 MJ/kg wet

Diffuse, relatively low energy density:


expensive to harvest, ship.
Annual cycle: biomass available only at
harvest time, may need to be stored.

The main components of biomass are

carbohydrates & lignin (+proteins, lipids)


Lignin

Carbohydrates
H OH
H O

HO
HO

OH

OH

D-glucose

Cellulose

Mostly cellulose & hemicellulose


Fats
O

O
O

O
O

Proteins

Lignin and Protein images, public domain from Wikimedia Commons.

Uses of biomass

Energy uses
Heat
Electricity (including co-firing)
Liquid Fuels for Transportation

Many important non-energy uses

Food for humans


Animal feed (a major and growing use)
Lumber & other construction materials
Clothing (cotton, wool, linen, leather)
Paper, packaging, etc.

Biomass energy use is currently dominated by wood,


but government regulations driving rapid expansion of
ethanol and biodiesel production.

2.5

Wood and derived fuels

quadrillion btu

2.0

1.5

Biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel)


1.0

0.5

Waste
0.0
2002

2003

2004

2005
year

2006

2007

2008

Using biomass for energy: options


Burn it for electricity or heat
US Paper/Wood industry: 6 GWe
Coal is usually cheaper for large-scale
Good option with carbon cap: mix
biomass with coal.

Convert to Gas (CH4 or CO/H2)


Practiced on small-scale using waste
Coal-to-syngas and natural gas are
cheaper, but maybe with carbon cap

Convert to Liquid Fuels

Syngas is a mixture of CO/H2 used for many


purposes. Usually made from natural gas, but
can also be made from biomass.
Biomass
Steam or oxygen

Syngas:
CO
H2

Gasifier
800C

Electricity,
CH4, H2,
Gasoline/diesel,
Ethanol

CH1.5O0.67 + 0.33 H2O CO + 1.08 H2

wood

steam

syngas
Hr = +101 kJ/mol
700-900C, 1 atm

Depending on biomass
composition, desired
stoichiometry, mix in some
O2 (partial combustion) to
provide the heat of reaction
Image by Gerfriedc on Wikimedia Commons.

Source: National Renewable Energy Lab; F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland.
Image source: Gssing Burgenland (Austria) gasifier, via wikimedia commons.

Syngas electricity.

Large-scale electricity generation


IGCC: Integrated-gasification combined cycle
(clean coal)
Easier to capture CO2 and more efficient than
direct combustion, but more capital intensive
Proposed integration with Fischer-Tropsch to
make synfuels.

Small-scale cogeneration
combined heat and power
5 kW to 5 MW
waste streams, off-grid operation
Source: DOE EERE.

Syngas CH4 or H2
CO
H2

Methanation
reactor

CH4
CO2
H2O

Methanation

CO + 1.08 H2 0.52 CH4 + 0.48 CO2 + 0.04 H2O

CO
H2
H2O

WGS
reactor

Hr = -127 kJ/mol
400C, 10-20 atm
Ni catalyst

H2
CO2

Water gas shift

CO + H2O CO2 + H2

Source: F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland;


& Cat Comm 4 215-221 (2003).

Hr = -41 kJ/mol
400-500C, 1 atm
Iron oxide catalyst

Syngas: Diesel and alcohols can be made via


Fischer-Tropsch process.
Coal-to-liquids and gas-toliquids technology
Germany; South Africa

CO
H2

Ideal reaction:
(2n+1) H2 + n CO CnH2n+2 + n H2O

F-T
reactor

200-350C
Exothermic

Many simultaneous
reactions
alcohols, alkenes, etc.

Selectivity
Catalyst, temperatures,
pressures, H2/CO ratio

Alkanes (gasoline, diesel)


Alcohols

Syngas can be used as a biological feedstock.


Hybrid
thermochemical /
biological process
Syngas produced
from biomass

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see descriptions of the INEOS Bio Ethanol process.

Syngas
fermented into
ethanol
Ethanol from the
whole plant,
rather than only
sugars
Both cellulose &
lignin gasified;
most other
cellulosic
ethanol doesnt
use lignin

Source: BRI company website, http://www.brienergy.com/pages/process01.html

BIOGAS: Anaerobic digestion is a simple,


robust method for mixed wet waste streams.
Natural bacterial process degrades most organic material
(cellulose, hemicellulose, starches, sugars, proteins, fats)

Figure removed for copyright reasons. See Figure 10.7 in


Tester, J. W., et al. Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among
Options. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2005.

Exception: lignin

cellulose,
protein, etc.

Bacterial
hydrolysis

CH4

50-75%

CO2

25-50%

N2

0-10%

H2

0-1%

H2S

0-3

O2

0-2

CH4, CO2

Methanogenic
bacteria
acetic acid,
NH4

sugars,
amino acids, etc.

Acidogenic
bacteria

Acetogenic
bacteria

organic acids
CO2, NH4, H2

Bioenergy as Goal or Bioenergy as Byproduct


Historically, biomass products (food, lumber) have
been considered more valuable than biomass energy
So existing policies and practices focus on
agriculture, lumber, & land use.
Usually waste or surplus biomass used as energy
Usually more economic to use fossil fuels than biomass for
energy.
There is a lot of waste biomass, but often inconvenient to
collect, use.

If biomass-to-energy were economically competitive


with fossil fuels, could see rapid large shifts in land
use (e.g. deforestation, conversion of arable land to
energy crops) and jumps in food prices
but if it is not economically competitive, will biomass
ever be used on a large scale for energy?
Food price shocks and food riots a few years ago have
raised awareness of the issues

Using biomass for energy: options


Burn it for electricity or heat
US Paper/Wood industry: 6 GWe
Coal is usually cheaper for large-scale
Good option with carbon cap: mix biomass
with coal.

Convert to Gas (CH4 or CO/H2)


Practiced on small-scale using waste
Coal-to-syngas and natural gas are cheaper

Convert to Liquid Fuels


Looks to be most profitable on large scale:
not many good competing alternatives to oil!

Biomass is the only major renewable source of


liquid and gaseous fuels.
7
6

Wind
Geothermal
Hydroelectric
Biomass

hydroelectric

15

10 btu

Liquid fuels offer superior energy


storage and transportability.

Solar

40
1.5

diesel

biomass

19
49
19
54
19
59
19
64
19
69
19
74
19
79
19
84
19
89
19
94
19
99
20
04

30
ethanol

1.0

NiMH

MJ/L
MJ/L

lithium ion
gasoline

20

0.5

Biomass is currently the largest source of


renewable energy in the US and the world,
and the only renewable source capable of
producing fuels with current technology.

propane

10

NiCd
lead acid
vanadium bromide

compressed air

batteries

vanadium redox

0
0.0
0

10 0.2

20

0.430

MJ/kg
MJ/kg

40
0.6

50

Biomass contains more oxygen and is


structurally different from fuels.
H OH
H O

HO
HO

OH
OH

O
O

D-glucose

O
O

Carbohydrates

H2
Hydrogen

Fats

Proteins

Cellulose

Lignin

CH4
Natural Gas
Methane

Propane
LPG / NGL
Autogas

Gasoline
Petrol
Naptha

Lignin and Protein images, public domain from Wikimedia Commons.

Diesel

End of Biofuels lecture #1


Part 2 is about how to make
biomass into biofuels
Break time!

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Biomass Part II: Producing Biofuels

William H. Green

Sustainable Energy

MIT

November 16, 2010

Biomass needs to be converted to useful fuels.

Biomass

Conventional Fuels

State

Generally solids

Liquids or gases

Energy
Density

Low
[Lignocellulose:
~1020 MJ/kg]

High
[Gasoline: 43.4 MJ/kg]

Moisture
Content

High
[Corn: 15% moisture

delivered]

No moisture content

Oxygen
Content

High

[Often 1040% oxygen]

No oxygen content
[<1% oxygen]

Generally not compatible


with existing engines,
boilers, and turbines

Combust efficiently in
existing engines, boilers,
and turbines

Compatibility

Biomass contains more oxygen and is


structurally different from fuels.
H OH
H O

HO
HO

OH

OH

O
O

D-glucose

O
O

Carbohydrates

H2
Hydrogen

Fats

Proteins

Cellulose

Lignin

CH4
Natural Gas
Methane

Propane
LPG / NGL
Autogas

Gasoline
Petrol
Naptha

Lignin image from wikimedia foundation, peptide image from http://www.steve.gb.com.

Diesel

Most firstgeneration biofuels are imperfect


fuel replacements.
Ethanol

Biodiesel

DME

Synthetic
natural gas

26.9 MJ/kg

Gasoline

OCH3

OH

37.5 MJ/kg

Diesel

28.9 MJ/kg

Propane

CH4
49.5 MJ/kg

Natural gas

CH4
43.4 MJ/kg

42.8 MJ/kg

46.3 MJ/kg

49.5 MJ/kg

Ethanol: the original biofuel.

-7000

~7000 B.C.
Oldest
evidence of
ethanol
fermentation
(pottery in
China)

-6000

-5000

-4000

750

~800 A.D.
Ethanol first
distilled in
Middle East

-3000

1000

-2000

-1000

1250

1500

1000

1750

2000

2000

1796

1908

Lowitz produces
absolute (pure)
ethanol

Model T
runs on
ethanol

1859

1885

Drake drills first


oil well in
Pennsylvania

Daimlers 1st
gasolinepowered car

Ethanol is made by yeast when no oxygen is


present.
3000

If oxygen is available, cells use it


2500

Without oxygen, cells salvage a little energy with fermentation

C6H12O6 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2 + 2 ATP


Fuel upgrading

enthalpy of comb
combustion,
ustion, kJ/mol

C6H12O6 + 6 O2 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + (36 or 38) ATP

2000

1500

1000

H OH
H O

HO
HO

OH
OH

D-glucose

16 MJ/kg,
solid

OH

500

Ethanol

27 MJ/kg,
liquid

0
Glucose

Ethanol

Ethanol processing is much more complex than


fermentation.

Milling

Corn

Harvest

Liquification
Li
quification &
Saccharification

Fermentation

Transportation

Purification

Conversion

Ethanol

Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

Careful accounting must be made of the


energy used to make ethanol.
Energy in Ethanol Production
Argonne (1999)
Total Ethanol

USDA (2004)

Distill/Dry

ORNL (1990)

Electricity

UCBerkeley A (2006)

Distribution

UCBerkeley B (2006)

Other

Amoco (1989)

Corn

Iowa State (1992)


0

10

20

30

40

Effect of common
system boundaries,
coproduct credit

Pimentel (2005)

MJ/kg EtOH

MIT (2006)
0.5

0.75

Machinery

1.25

1.5

1.75

Net Energy Ratio

Seeds
Electricity
Bij

Pesticide
Lime

Cij

1.6 kg CO2

Ammonia
Production

N2O

P-K

CH4

Cij

Bij

GWP: 2.2
kg CO2eq

Nitrogen

Nitrogen

Nat Gas

Irrigation

Electricity

Corn
Production
Bij

Fossil Fuels

MJ/kg EtOH

Corn
Nat Gas
17 MJ
Electricity
1.8 MJ

Nat Gas
Electricity

3.4 kg
13.5 MJ
1.3 MJ

Ethanol
Production

Cij

0 kg
EtOH
1 kg
.95 kg

Feed

Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

A Berkeley Lifecycle Analysis found strong

hope for ethanol made from lignocellulose.

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 1 in Farrell, Alexander E., et al.
"Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals." Science 311 (2006): 506-508.

Farrell et al. also consolidated cornethanol studies, but found


cellulosic ethanol to be highly preferable on all counts.

Science 311(5760) 506-508 2006. doi: 10.1126/science.1121416

Lignocellulose is actually three distinct


components.
Cellulose

Hemicellulose

Lignin
H 3CO
OCH 3

O
HO

7
OH

HO

O
O

OH

HO

HO

HC
HC
H 2C

O
OH

OCH 3

H3CO
CO 2H

HOH2C

OH

CH 2
CH
CH

HC

OH

H
H
H 2OH

14

OH

CH

24
H 2 COH

13
H 3CO

CH
HO CH

8
O

OHC CH CH 2OH
O
H 3C O

HC
H COH

CH 2OH
O

H 3CO

HC
CH

15

O
H 2OH

CH 2OH
CH H 3CO
CH
9

12

H 2COH
O
HC
CHO
17

23
OCH 3
O

O
O

HO CH
CH
H COH

Glucose units
[fermentable]
Structure:
-(1-4)-glycosidic
linkages
much hydrogen
bonding
linear; crystalline
[difficult to break
down]
~17 MJ/kg

Xylose, glucose,
galactose, mannose,
etc., units
[not as easily
fermentable]
Structure:
branched;
amorphous
[easy to break down]
~17 MJ/kg

Phenylpropane units
[not fermentable]
Structure:
highly polymerized
cement-like role in
cells
[difficult to break
down]
~21 MJ/kg

H 2COH
HC

Cellulosic ethanol processing requires

pretreatment and burns lignin.


Energy in Ethanol Production

(Fermentation route.)

Heat, Acid

Detox

Enzyme (Cellulase)

Total Ethanol

Yeast
(5C fermenters)

Distill/Dry
Electricity
Distribution

Beer
Pretreatment

Saccharification

Fermentation

Other
Corn

Stover

10

20

30

MJ/kg EtOH

No DDGS: no drying animal feed.


Stover
Milling

Conversion

Ethanol
Purification

Ethanol

Lignin has no value: burned to


power distillation column.

Lower ag inputs than corn


production.

Ligno
cellulose

Harvest/gather

Transportation

Conversion

Ethanol

Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

40

Corn ethanol limited by land requirements;


cellulose more available than corn sugars
Corn ethanol

DOE/USDA Billion-ton study

To replace 1/3 transportation


petroleum with corn ethanol:
~320 million acres corn
Total ag land: ~450 million acres

1.4 billion (dry) tons can be sustainably


harvested annually: energy content equal to
~1/3 of US petroleum consumption
Residuals, forestry, energy crops: largely
lignocellulosic

Map from CIA World Factbook.


Assumptions:
2.8 gal EtOH/bu
140 bu/acre
1/3 of 5 x 109 bbl transport. petrol.

Billion-ton Study: DOE/GO-102995-2135 2005.


Images from Perlack, Robert D., et al. "Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical
Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply." April 2005. DOE/GO-102995-2135 / ORNL/TM-2005/66.

Biodiesel is a fatty acid converted to behave

more like diesel.


Goal:
O

O
OH

OCH3

fatty acid

biodiesel

Detailed:
O

O
O

CH2

O
O

CH

CH2

+3 CH3OH
KOH

OCH3

biodiesel
HO

CH2

HO

CH

HO

CH2

triglyceride
glycerol

Biodiesel processing is fairly mild.

PFD from DOE EERE.

Mild temperatures: 50-80C


Atmospheric pressure

Biodiesel is a pretty good fuel. Where does it


come from? Why dont we use more of it?
Feedstock: oil crops, used cooking oil, etc.
Problem is SCALE, use of farmland or rainforest:
Oil Palm: 600 gallons/acre/yr
Replacing Asian rainforest with oil palm plantations
to meet EU biodiesel demand.

Rapeseed (Canola): 127 gallons/acre/yr


Soybeans: 48 gallons/acre/yr

If you sell it for $2/gallon, that is only $96/year
for use of an acre of farm land.

Future directions:
Bacteria, yeast can convert sugars to lipids: make biodiesel
from cellulose?
Industry, airlines would like to take O out of biodiesel:
Thermal decarboxylation; thermal hydrodeoxygenation

Bioenergy as Goal or Bioenergy as Byproduct

Historically, biomass products (food,


lumber) have been considered more
valuable than biomass energy.
Existing policies and practices focus on
agriculture, lumber, land use, etc.; only
waste or surplus biomass used as energy.
Focus needs to shift for biomass to
become important on global energy scale.
Last years food price shocks and food
riots have raised awareness of the issues

Most biomass conversion techniques are put in

two main camps.


Biological
Using microbes to convert
biomass to fuels

Pros
Can make chemicals with
high specificity
Works well in aqueous
media at reasonable
temperatures and
pressures

Cons
Requires specific chemical
inputs (sugar)
Low throughput

Examples:
Ethanol, CH4, butanol

Thermochemical

Using traditional chemical


processing methods

Pros
Often doesnt require
chemical specificity of
feedstocks
Higher

Higher throughput
throughput

Cons
Extreme T, P may be
needed
Subject to catalyst fouling,
inorganic precipitation

Examples
Biodiesel, syngas, CH4, H2,
diesel, gasoline

Advanced fermentation techniques may


produce better fuels from cheaper feedstocks.

Better fuels
butanol, propanol, etc.
high lipids
hydrocarbon excretion

Better feedstock utilization


Cheaper enzymes
Lynds singlepot technique
Syngas: H2, CO

Biomass to Biofuels using Microorganisms

Sugars
Glycerol
Syngas
Fatty Acids
Etc.

Feedstock

Cellular Metabolism:
Set of biochemical reactions that
a cell uses to sustain life (growth,
cell maintenance, protection from
competitors)
competitors)

Conversion Technology
Courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer. Used with permission.

Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.

Ethanol
Butanol
Biodiesel
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen
Etc.

Fuel

What is Metabolic Engineering?

Sout

e1

e8 H e9
e5
C e F e7
e10
6
e2
G
I P
Sin A e3
e4
e14
e12 e11
B
K
J
e13
L

Cell
ei = Enzyme i
Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.
Courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer. Used with permission.

What is Metabolic Engineering?:


Gene overexpression and deletion

Sout

e1

e8 H e9
e
5
X
C e F e7
e10
6
e2
G
I P
Sin A e3
eX
e14
4
e11
e12 X
B
K
J
e13
L

Cell
ei = Enzyme i
Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.
Courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer. Used with permission.

What is Metabolic Engineering?:


Introduction of heterologous genes

Sout

e1

e8 H e9
e5
C e F e7
e10
6
e2
G
I P
Sin A e3
e4 e
e14
e12 e11
15
B D
K
J
e13
e16
P
L

Cell
P
Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.

Enzymes 1516 are not native to the host

Courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer. Used with permission.

Xylosefermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 1 in van Maris, Antonius J. A., et al.
"Development of Efficient Xylose Fermentation in Saccharomyces
cerevisiae: Xylose Isomerase as a Key Component." Advances in
Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology 108 (2007): 179-204.

Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.

Glycerolfermenting Escherichia coli

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 1 in Murarka, Abhishek, et al. "Fementative
Utilization of Glycerol by Escherichia coli and Its Implications
for the Production of Fuels and Chemicals." Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 74 (February 2008): 1124-1135.

Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.

Butanolproducing Escherichia coli

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

Source: Metab. Eng. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2007.08.003


Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.

Courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer. Used with permission.

Chemical conversion of biomass.

Specific catalysts
developed to convert
biomass to hydrogen,
ethanol, alkanes

Early stage technology


technology
Many catalysts subject to
fouling with whole
biomass streams
Usually combine catalysis
with pyrolysis or pre
treatment/separation.

Glucose

Ethanol

Fatty acids

Various catalytic technologies

H2
HMF
Alkanes

H2
CO2

Examples: Dumesic (Wisconsin), Schmidt (Minn.), Huber (U.Mass.), Brown (Ames), Roman (MIT)

H2
CO2

Pyrolysis oils are crude condensation products

of cooked biomass.

Pyrolysis: decomposition
or transformation of a
compound caused by
heat (AHD)
Rapid heating of biomass
in the absence of oxygen
oxygen
Various complex oils and
organics formed: needs
further refining
Options for oils produced:

Combustion in stationary
generators
Upgrading
(hydrodeoxygenation)
Gasification
(concentration method)

Fast Pyrolysis
Short residence times
(seconds)
Atmospheric pressure
Harder to refine oil
Energetic losses to
evaporation
Hydrothermal
Liquefaction
Highpressure (>40 atm)
Longer residence times
(minutes)
Higher efficiency possible
Easier to refine oil

Fast pyrolysis makes biooils at atmospheric

pressure in a few seconds.

Often uses fluidized beds


of sand or catalyst as
heat transfer medium.

Produces oil (containing


up to 15
1520%
20% moisture),
char, and gases.

Feedstocks need to be
predryed to around 10%
moisture

Fast pyrolysis

Raw
biomass

Anaerobic
Anaerobic
heating
heating
heating

Pyrolysis oils
Gases

Charcoal

Char & Tar

450-600C
O2-free
res. time: seconds

Steam

Another approach: Hydrothermal technologies can have


higher efficiencies by avoiding evaporating water.
Hvap,w
Most energy inefficiencies
in biofuels production result
from water evaporation
Ethanol: distillation, drying
Gasification: predrying

Agriculture
& transport

Distillation

Electricity

0%

20%

Drying

Liquefaction

40%

60%

80%

100%

Energy inputs in corn-grain ethanol production

Heating under intense

pressure avoids phase

change; makes heat

recoverable.

Produce water insoluble


fuels for easy separation.

Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

Hydrothermal liquefaction involves heating under


pressure in the water phase.
Example process: HTU
(hydrothermal upgrading)
Dutch collaboration

including Shell

Biocrude formation raw


material for further
conventional refining
Diesel & kerosene

Process conditions:
~330C, ~100 bar

Demonstration on onion
peels
(high lignocellulosic, high
sulfur)

Wood conversion to biocrude at


340C.

Courtesy of Dragan Knezevic, Sascha Kersten,


and Wim van Swaaij. Used with permission.

Image source: Naber & Goudriaan, ACS Meeting, Fuel Chem Division, 31 Aug 2005.

Comparison of fast pyrolysis and hydrothermal


liquefaction oils.

Table removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Table 3 in Peterson, Andrew A., et al. "Thermochemical Biofuel Production in
Hydrothermal Media: A Review of Sub- and Supercritical Water Technologies." Energy & Environmental Science 1 (2008): 32-65.

Source: Peterson et al. Energy Env Sci 1(1): 32 2008.

Hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) removes oxygen,


using techniques from refining.
Biocrudes typically more
viscous and higher in
oxygen than conventional
petroleum
Hydrogen is used to break
up and remove oxygen
from the biomolecules
Adapted from other
techniques in refining:
hydrodesulfurization

(HDS)

hydrodenitrogenation

(HDN)

hydrocracking (HCK)

Oxygen can be removed as water.

C6H9O4 + 2.5 H2 C6H12 + 2 H2O


HDO of
biocrude

HDS, HDN,
HCK or
petroleum

Equipment,
plant

(same)

(same)

Pressures

310 MPa

310MPa

Catalysts

Co, Ni, Mo
(sulfided)

Co, Ni, Mo
(sulfided)

Size

10,000
tonnes/a

5,000
1,000,000
tonnes/a

H2
consumption

340730
Nm3/tonne

200800
Nm3/tonne

Energ Fuel 21:1792, 2007. Appl Cat A 199:147 (2000). Cat Today 29:297 (1996).

Hydrodeoxygenation (HDO) may also


drastically increase yields.
Hydrogenenriched biofuel
Oxygen can be removed as water.

Dietenberger & Anderson


propose expanding biomass
resource by coupling to
renewable H2 source.

May vastly increase the


amount of recoverable
resource (venting H2O
instead of CO2)

Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 5


in Dietenberger, Mark A., and Mark Anderson. "Vision of the
U.S. Biofuel Future: A Case for Hydrogen-Enriched Biomass
Gasification." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 46
(December 19, 2007): 8863-8874.

Additionally, can couple with


waste heat from H2 source.

IECR 46(26) 8863 2007.

C6H9O4 + 2.5 H2 C6H12 + 2 H2O

Thermochemical diesel techniques may


overcome disadvantages of biodiesel.
Various techniques can recover lipids for use

as fuels without the limitations of biodiesel:

1. CWT hydrothermal liquefaction process.

process.

2. Hydrodeoxygenated diesel process.


3. Supercritical methanol/ethanol biodiesel.

Changing World Technologies converted lipid-rich


turkey offal into diesel plus fertilizers and carbon
before they went bankrupt in 2009

Photos of poultry remnants and petroleum end products removed due to copyright restrictions.

1 -Stage

Maceration
pretreatment

Organic
waste

Stage I: 250C
Hydrothermal process to
remove fatty acids from
glycerol backbone.

Fertilizer
Minerals
Water

1st Stage
Oil

Stage II: 500C


Thermal cracking to
decarboxylate fatty acids
into hydrocarbons.

Diesel and
gasoline
splits

Courtesy of Changing World Technologies. Used with permission.

Conventional refinery techniques can be used


to make green diesel.
Neste Oil and UOP use refinery techniques:
catalytic saturation
hydrodeoxygenation
decarboxylation
hydroisomerization

Reported specifications more closely


Images removed due to copyright restrictions.
Please see Fig. 4, Tables 2 and 3 in Holmgren, J., et al.
"New Developments in Renewable Fuels Offer More Choices."
Hydrocarbon Processing (September 2007): 67-71.

high- temperature
gasification

Hydrothermal technologies can be used to gasify


directly.

350

PSI process

Press
Pres
sure,
ure, bar

300

catalytic
gasification

400

250

supercritical
fluid

H2 production

quid
liliquid

200

HTU process

150

CWT process

100
50

vapor

0
0

100

200

300

400

Temperature, C

500

600

700

Hydrothermal gasification can produce methane in a


single step from a range of biomass.

Images removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see, for example, "Scientific Challenges
Towards an Efficient Hydrothermal Biomass Gasification
Process," "Fuels From Biomass: Use of Neutron Radiography
to Improve the Design of a Salt Separator in Supercritical-Water
Biomass Gasification," and other research findings from Prof. Frdric
Vogel's Catalytic Process Engineering Group, Paul Scherrer Institute.

Supercritical gasification provides singlestep


methanation, which reduces heat requirements.

Images removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see, for example, "Scientific Challenges
Towards an Efficient Hydrothermal Biomass Gasification
Process," "Fuels From Biomass: Use of Neutron Radiography
to Improve the Design of a Salt Separator in Supercritical-Water
Biomass Gasification," and other research findings from Prof. Frdric
Vogel's Catalytic Process Engineering Group, Paul Scherrer Institute.

Catalyst lifetime and salts have hindered supercritical


water gasification to methane.
Elliott (PNNL) found
early deactiviation of
catalyst while
running with DDG&S
Primarily sulfates:
SEM w/

w/
energy
energy
dispersive xray

XPS

Images removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 2 and 3c in


Elliott, Douglas C., et al. "Chemical Processing in High-Pressure Aqueous
Environments. 7. Process Development for Catalytic Gasification of Wet
Biomass Feedstocks." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 43
(2004): 1999-2004.

Elliott et al. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43(9) 1999-2004 (2001).

Integrated biofuels & fertilizer vision

Ionic constituents of Swiss swine manure solids as


measured with ion chromatography after soxhlet extraxction

CO2

Fuel
use

Manure

CH4

SCWG

H2O

N,P,K

Concentrations are given in mg/kg on a dry basis. ND: not detected.

Image by Pearson Scott Foresman


at the Open Clip Art Library.

Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

Hydrogen can be made from biomass via supercritical


water gasification at higher temperatures.

H2rich gas produced

Labscale tests in
Germany and China

H2,
CH4,
CO2

water

reactor
react
or

600C, 300 bar,


alkaline catalyst

high
lignocellulosic
material

Feeds such as sawdust,


wheat straw, peanut
shells,

See Peterson et al. Energy Env Sci 1(1): 32 2008 for more details on all hydrothermal processing.

550-650C
250-350 bar
KOH cat.

Biofuel conversions: some takeaway points.


1.

Don't invent new fuels, find ways to make existing fuels


from biomass. If you want to make a new fuel, need to
demonstrate it has big performance advantages over
existing fuels.

2.

Chemically, the goal is oxygen removal.

3 .
3.

For efficiency,
efficiency, the
the most iimportant
mportant thing
thing you can do
do iis
s
handle water intelligently. Biosynthesis of waterinsoluble
fuels greatly reduces separation costs.

4.

There exists enough waste biomass to supply about 25%


of the demand for liquid fuels. However, it is widely
distributed over the globe. Big unresolved questions
about economics, land use, policy, as well as which
conversion technologies are best.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Automotive Technologies and Fuel


Economy Policy

Don MacKenzie

MIT Engineering Systems Division


Sloan Automotive Laboratory


November 18, 2010


11/18/10

Outline

Technology overview

Policy overview

11/18/10

www.ecologicliving.ca

Technologies for Higher Fuel


Economy
Credit for slides: Irene Berry
SM Mechanical Engineering / Technology and Policy, 2010

11/18/10

We frame vehicle design in terms of range


and performance goals
Range

Performance

Over a Standard

Drive Cycle

0-60 mph
Acceleration Time

Energy Specification
11/18/10

Power Specification

Range depends on the energy required at


the wheels and vehicle efficiency
2005 3.0-L Toyota Camry over UDDS drive cycle
Standby:
8%

Fuel Tank:
100%

Aero:
3%
16%

Engine

Driveline

13%

Engine Loss
76%

Braking:
6%

Driveline
Losses:
3%

770%

Rolling:
4%

100%

vehicle efficiency over


11/18/10
UDDS
cycle: 13%

~ 165 5Wh/km

Performance depends on the peak power of


the vehicle
Limited region of high efficiency

Peak power

90
80

Power with wide open throttle

280 (30.6%)

Engine power (kW)

70

260 (33%)

60

40
30

350 (24.5%)

50

bsfc (g/kWh)
(efficiency)

.3
34

0(

Engine map of spark


ignition (SI) internal
combustion engine
(ICE)

500 (17.1%)

25

310 (27.7%)

270 (31.8%)
400 (21.4%)

20
10

1000 (8.57%)
600 (14.3%)

0
500

1000

1500

2000

Typical operating conditions


on UDDS drive cycle

2500

3000

700 (12.2%)

3500

Engine speed (rpm)

11/18/10

4000

800 (10.7%)

4500

5000

5500

Lowest efficiency is at low


loads and high speeds
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Ehsani, Mehrdad, et al.
Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals,
Theory, and Design. CRC Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780849331541.

So, we want to increase efficiency while


meeting design goals


90
80

Power with wide open throttle

280 (30.6%)

1. Reduce load (energy required at


the wheels)

Engine power (kW)

70

260 (33%)

60

350 (24.5%)

)
%
4.3

50
0
25

bsfc (g/kWh)
(efficiency)

40
30

(3

500 (17.1%)
310 (27.7%)

270 (31.8%)

400 (21.4%)

20

2. Increase powertrain efficiency

10

1000 (8.57%)
800 (10.7%)

600 (14.3%) 700 (12.2%)

0
500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

Engine speed (rpm)

1. Increase efficiency of engine

90
80

2. Shift engine operating points

280 (30.6%)

70
Engine power (kW)

3. Use smaller engine (downsize)

Power with wide open throttle

260 (33%)

60
50
40

350 (24.5%)

0(
25

bsfc (g/kWh)
(efficiency)

.3%
34

)
500 (17.1%)
310 (27.7%)

270 (31.8%)

30

400 (21.4%)

20
10
0
500

600 (14.3%) 700 (12.2%)

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

800 (10.7%)

4500

1000 (8.57%)

5000

Engine speed (rpm)

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Ehsani, Mehrdad, et al.


Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals,
Theory, and Design. CRC Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780849331541.

11/18/10

7
[Ehsani et al 2004]

5500

Reducing the load at the wheels reduces

fuel consumption

Reduce weight
Reduce aerodynamic drag
Reduce accessory loads

Please see any description of Volkswagen's 1-Litre


concept car and Siuru, Bill. "5 Facts: Vehicle Aerodynamics."
GreenCar, October 13, 2008.

These reductions also


allow for downsizing


11/18/10

Diesel engines are more efficient, but


heavier and more expensive
Compression Ignition (vs. Spark Ignition)
Only air is compressed
Higher compression ratio
Fuel is injected into the compressed air
and self-ignites
Direct injection
Diesel (vs. Gasoline) Fuel
Higher energy content
Higher emissions from combustion

11/18/10

These engine technologies increase engine


efficiency and/or power
Technology

Mechanism

Efficiency gain

Variable valve timing

Optimizes efficiency for


both high and low engine
speeds

5%

Cylinder deactivation

Increases low load


efficiency

7.5%

Turbo- or super
charge

Increases engine power


per size: allows downsizing

7.5%

Direct Injection

More efficient fuel delivery


and combustion

5-10%

Advanced aftertreatment

Allows engine to produce


more emissions

www.fueleconomy.gov

11/18/10

N/A

10

These transmission technologies allow


better control of engine speed
Technology

Mechanism

Efficiency gain

CV transmission

Optimize engine speed

6%

Dual-clutch
transmission

Optimize engine speed

7%

www.fueleconomy.gov

11/18/10

11

Different combustion cycles also offer


efciency improvements
Technology

Mechanism

Efficiency gain

Miller cycle

Trade power for efficiency

5%

Atkinson cycle

Trade power for efficiency

5%

HCCI

More efficient at low load

7.5%

www.fueleconomy.gov

11/18/10

12

There are additional opportunities for


energy savings through hybridization


Micro+ Hybrids
Eliminates
Standby:
8%

Fuel Tank:
100%

Aero:
3%
16%

Engine

Engine Loss
76%

Full Hybrid Reduces via


engine downsizing
11/18/10
shifts engine operating

Driveline

Driveline
Losses:
3%

13%

Rolling:
4%

Braking:
6%

Regenerative Braking
Reduces
13

Hybrid optimization shifts the engine


operating points to higher efficiency


Torque with wide


open throttle
20

30 40

50

60

70

80 90

Power (kW)

982

Use electric power to assist

Brake torque (Nm)

200

sfc
(ghWh)
(efficiency)

785

250 (34.3%)

Engine only
260 (33.3%)

150

100

270 (31.89%)

Use electric to
load the engine
to recharge

350 (24.5%)

600 (14.3%)

500

400 (21.4%)

196

Electric only
700 (12.4%)

393

310 (27.7%)

500 (17.1%)

50

589

280 (30.6%)

Brake mean effective pressure (kPa)

10

250

800 (10.7%) 1000 (8.57%)

0
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Engine speed (rpm)

[Ehsani et al 2004]

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Ehsani, Mehrdad, et al.


Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals,
Theory, and Design. CRC Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780849331541.

11/18/10

14

(kW of motor power)

Electric Power

Hybrids and electric vehicles are classified


by degree of electrification
Plug-in
Hybrid
Electric
Vehicle
(PHEV)

Full
Hybrid

Mild
Hybrid

Battery Electric
Vehicle (BEV)

Can plug-in to
recharge

Can have electric


only range

Micro
Hybrid

Electric Energy
(watt-hours of battery capacity)
11/18/10

15

Hybrids achieve fuel savings through


multiple efficiency mechanisms
40% lower fuel consumption

35% lower fuel consumption

Data from: An et al 2001

11/18/10

16

Battery electric vehicle are fully electric,


which has both pros and cons
Advantages
Electricity
Any energy source
Potentially less emissions
Single emissions source
Electric drive
More energy efficient

Higher low-speed torque


Lower operating costs

Less maintenance

11/18/10

Disadvantages

Batteries
Long charge times

High cost
Low energy content

relative to gasoline

Limited range
Concerns over life

Electric drive
Different operating and
driving feel

17

To compare different fuels, consider well-to


wheels energy and emissions
Well-to-Tank
~30% Efficient

Tank-to-Wheel
~80% Efficient

~24% Efficient
~16% Efficient

~80% Efficient

~20% Efficient

Image from "Getting Around Without Gasoline." Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, 1995.
[http://www.nesea.org/]

11/18/10

18

Automotive Fuel Economy Policy in


the U.S.

Overview of Institutions and Policies


Federal
DOT:
Fuel Economy
Standards

IRS:
Fuel Taxes

State
EPA:

CARB:

GHG Standards

GHG Standards

IRS:
Gas Guzzler Tax

State
Governments:
Fuel Taxes

Feebates
Cap & Trade

11/18/10

20

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


Administered by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


(NHTSA, part of the DOT)

Sets minimum average level of fuel economy that new lightduty* vehicles sold by each manufacturer must meet each year

Fuel economy is based on a test procedure from the 1970s


~30% higher than real-world values or window sticker estimates

* Light-Duty means a gross vehicle weight rating 8,500 lbs.


11/18/10

2
1
http://www.cornerstonemcm.org/Cafe_Outdoor_Light_Box.jpg

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


Separate standards & calculations for cars and light trucks

Fuel Economy (MPG)


60
2025 Proposed
Range

50

40
2020 Mandate
EISA 2007

30

20

10

0
1970

1980

1990

11/18/10

2000

2010

2020

2030

22

The MPG Distortion


MPG is inverse of metric that matters: fuel consumption

2025 Prop
Range

Fuel Consumption (Gal/100mi)

8
7
6
5
4
2020 Mandate
EISA 2007

2025 Proposed
Range
1.7-2.2 gal/100mi

2
1
0
1970

1980

1990

11/18/10

2000

2010

2020

2030

23

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


Some Details

Electric Vehicle Credited MPG = (Energy-Equivalent MPG) / 0.15

Credits for overcompliance can be banked from past 5 years or


borrowed from next 3 years

Flexible-fuel and bi-fuel vehicles capable of using alternative fuels


earn ~60% bonus credit on fuel economy rating

Total benefit capped at 1.2 mpg each year

Penalty for noncompliance = $55/mpg/vehicle

11/18/10

2
4
http://gas2.org/files/2009/07/flexfuel.jpg

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


Recent Changes

NHTSA now required to set attribute-based standards


Different standards for each manufacturer, based on product mix

Intended to reduce equity issues of regulatory cost

Effectively negates downsizing as a compliance strategy

Credits can now be traded between fleets and between


manufacturers

Subject to certain restrictions

11/18/10

2
5
http://gas2.org/files/2009/07/flexfuel.jpg

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


Size-Based Standards

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

11/18/10

26

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


Size-Based Standards

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

11/18/10

27

Corporate Average Fuel Economy


How Standards are Set
Cost-benefit analysis including discounted lifetime fuel expenses,
estimated technology costs, monetized values of non-financial
costs and benefits
Applies efficiency-enhancing technologies in order of cost
effectiveness, subject to judgment-based constraints
Equalizes marginal cost of more technology with marginal benefit

Worlds biggest black box?

11/18/10

2

8

Vehicle GHG Standards


(2002) Pavley GHG standards required by California Assembly


Bill 1493, to be implemented by California Air Resources Board

13 other states opt in to Californias standards under Clean Air Act


provisions

(2004) Auto manufacturers, trade associations, dealers sue,


citing principle that GHG regulation is tantamount to fuel
economy regulation, explicitly preempted by CAFE law
(2007) Supreme Court rules in Massachusetts v EPA that GHGs
are pollutants under the Clean Air Act
(2007) Bush Administration denies California waiver from
federal preemption (waiver needed to implement regulations)
(2009) Obama administration grants waiver, brokers truce
between manufacturers and states, announces harmonized state
& federal standards. Dealers continue to sue.

11/18/10

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15503

29

Vehicle GHG Standards


Electric vehicles
assumed to have zero
emissions, up to first
200,000-300,000
produced.
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules

11/18/10

30

Gasoline Taxes

Cents per Gallon


60

10% increase in fuel price 3.3% increase in MPG (long term)


To go from 26 35 MPG:


Need gas to go from $2/gal to ~$5/gal


Annual gasoline bill increases by ~$1000/year for new cars
Annual gasoline bill increases by ~$1800/year for older cars

50

40

30

State

20

Federal

10

11/18/10

31
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Gas Guzzler Tax


Applies only to cars, not light trucks


12.5 mpg

22.5 mpg

11/18/10

32

Other Policies

Feebates


Cap & Trade



Fee + Rebate, purchase incentive system


Greater cost certainty, less emissions certainty relative to CAFE
Recently adopted in France, initial results promising
Would effectively be a gas tax
$10 / tonne CO2 ~ $0.10 / gallon

Cash for Clunkers


Not energy/carbon policy


$200+ per ton of avoided emissions (Knittel, 2009)

More effective if goals are criteria pollutant emissions


Maybe effective as economic stimulus

11/18/10
33

Advantages and Disadvantages of Policies


Pros

Cons

Standards

+Emissions certainty
+Well-established

-Rebound effect takes back


~10% of benefits, increases
other externalities
-Uncertain costs
-No incentive to exceed
standard
-Disparate impact on
manufacturers

Incentives

+Cost certainty
+Stimulates continuous
improvement

-Little experience
-Reduced operating cost
rebound effect

Fuel Taxes

+Drives reductions
throughout system

-Hits consumers hardest,


especially w/ older vehicles
-Politically difficult

11/18/10

34

Current Issues
being dealt with
How to include electric vehicles & plug-in hybrids
State versus Federal regulation

and not being dealt with


How to sustain increases in fuel economy over the long term
Cost to manufacturers of meeting regulations

11/18/10

35

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Life Cycle Analysis

With examples from biofuel analysis

Sustainable Energy

18th November 2010

Outline of Presentation
Introduction to Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)

LCA Basics
Examples and challenges to
implementation
Corn Ethanol
Cellulosic Ethanol
Cellulosic Biofuels

Illuminating Biofuel Tradeoffs


Consideration of Biofuel Policy

Introduction to LCA

What is LCA?
A system analysis methodology (remember toolbox 4?)
cradletograve analysis

Emissions

Energy
Production of
Raw Materials

Wastes

Manufacturing
Process

Wastes

Use of
Product

Wastes

Disposal

Recycle

Wastes

Components of LCA

Inventory
Quantification of energy and raw material
requirements, emissions, effluents, and wastes
i.e. mass and energy balances are integrated over
each process in system

Impact Assessment
Values can be assigned to effects for

quantification

Improvement
Systems can then be optimized with respect to
parameters from impact assessment

Why is LCA methodology Useful?

Many parameters we are interested in dont


occur in just one step of a products lifecycle
Carbon dioxide emissions from CoaltoLiquid
fuels.

Optimizing one production step doesnt mean


system is optimal.
Hydrogen as a transportation fuel

Lifecycle analysis is intended to be used to


optimize the aggregate outcomes

Allow for comparison of potential

products: MacDonalds Styrofoam or

paper?

Oil (bad?)

Trees (natural?)

Chemicals (worse)
Paper (good ?)
Styrofoam (??)
Oil

Chlorine or
Peroxide
Pulp
Paper

PCBs +
Dioxins

Benzene + C2H4 + etc.

Acid or Alkali

Water

Wastewater

Hard to recycle
Plastic coating
Landfill

Trash

CFCs

CO2
Pentane

Styrene

Polystyrene foam

McD
Recycle

LifeCycle Analysis approach


Define cradletograve alternative systems
Set system boundary conditions
Set time basis (snapshot of industry in time vs.
one life cycle of representative product)
Identify impacts of interest to decisionmakers
Costs, airpollution, GHG emissions, wastes,
resource depletion, etc.
Foreach portion of the lifecycle, estimate the
impacts of interest
Assess overall tradeoffs, considering
uncertainties
Identify majorsources of adverse impact and
assess improvements

Life Cycle Analysis Software


Dedicated Packages
GaBi
Umberto

DIY (for simple cases)


Excel
Matlab

Life Cycle Analysis for Energy

Systems

Major process
steps
Resource
extraction/
production
transport
Fuel/electricity
production
Distribution

enduse

Important
Parameters
Emissions
Useful work
Costs

Useful simplification

Most energy
conversionfacilities
nonfuel resource
use negligible.

LCA studies for biofuels are

mandated

Text of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:


GENERAL.The term advanced biofuel means renewable
fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch, that has
lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as determined by the
Administrator, after notice and opportunity for comment, that
are at least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle greenhouse
gas emissions.
CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL.The term cellulosicbiofuel
means renewable fuel derived from any cellulose,
hemicellulose, or lignin that is derived from renewable biomass
and that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as determined
by the Administrator, that are at least 60 percent less than
the baseline lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.
Baseline:average LCA GHG emissions from gasoline or diesel,
whichever a particular biofuel replaces
The act calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022, with
at least 21 billion gallons of this being advanced biofuels.

LifeCycle Analysis biofuels approach

Define cradletograve alternative systems


Choose alternate fuel options

Set system boundary conditions


This is where the big fights have been/are going to be

Identify impacts of interest to decisionmakers


Costs, airpollution, GHG emissions, landuse
change, Food Versus Fuel?
Assess overall tradeoffs, considering

uncertainties

Identify majorsources of adverse impact and

assess improvements

System Boundaries for Biofuels

Where do we draw the boundaries for our


analysis? Why?
This turns out to be a MAJOR point of
contention.
The California Low Carbon Fuel Standard

If there is a comprehensive carbon tax


wont double counting then occur?

The California Low Carbon Fuel

Standard (LCFS)

The Governor's Executive Order directs

the Secretary for Environmental


Protection to coordinate the actions of the
California Energy Commission, the
California Air Resources Board (ARB), the
University of California and other agencies
to develop the protocols for measuring the
"lifecycle carbon intensity" of
transportation fuels

California LCFS (Continued)

In the California rulemaking a large fight


revolved around the quantification
secondary landuse changes.
Argument for inclusion:
Will include deforestation caused by land use
change to meet demand for food

Argument for exclusion:


Double counting
Measuring a counterfactual
Not applied to petroleum baseline

System Boundaries for Biofuels

(Revisited)

Policy is likely to play a major role in defining


system boundaries
The term advanced biofuel means renewable
fuel, other than ethanol derived from corn starch,
that has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, as
determined by the Administrator, after
notice and opportunity for comment, that are at
least 50 percent less than baseline lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions.

Assuming that system boundaries are non


overlapping could there still be double
counting?

Identifying the Process Steps

System contains a
connected web of
individual processing
steps each with their
own:
Energy balances
Mass balances
Cash flows
Emissions
Regulations

How do we determine
the necessary amount
of granularity?
Only major steps?

Every subprocess?

Down to the last valve?

This is a matter of
identifying goals of
analysis (think back
to SD lecture)

Key Issues

System Boundary

Biomass

Harvest

Transportation

Conversion

Fuel

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

17

Scale Biomass availability


Performance Energy balance
Economics today and tomorrow
transitioning from cornbased to
cellulosic fuel

MIT

Simplified Lifecycle of Biofuel

Production

Energy Inputs to Corn Ethanol

Total Ethanol
Distill/Dry
Electricity
Distribution
Other
Corn

10

20

30

MJ/kg EtOH
Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

40

Energy Inputs to Corn

Machinery
Seeds
Electricity
Pesticide
Lime
PK
Nitrogen
Irrigation
Fossil Fuels
0

MJ/kg EtOH

Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

Corn Ethanol comparison of

estimated net energy ratio.

Argonne (1999)

USDA (2004)

ORNL (1990)

UCBerkeley A (2006)

UCBerkeley B (2006)

Effect of common
system boundaries,
coproduct credit

Amoco (1989)

Iowa State (1992)

Pimentel (2005)

MIT (2006)

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

Net Energy Ratio


Courtesy of Jeremy Johnson. Used with permission.

1.75

Corn Ethanol

Key conclusions
Corn grain ethanol has a slightly positive net energy on
average, but is very dependent on
Ethanol production efficiency
Location and practices in corn production
Transportation distances

Improved corn yield, conversion and purification


technology can help, but most gains are incremental
Expansion of corn production will probably lead to

more energy intensity

22

MIT

Cellulosic Ethanol Fossil fuel

energy requirements

Tiffany Groode, PhD MIT 2008

Courtesy Tiffany Groode. Used with permission.

GHG Emissions Cellulosic

Ethanol

Tiffany Groode, PhD MIT 2008

Courtesy Tiffany Groode. Used with permission.

Net Energy Value Cellulosic

Ethanol

Tiffany Groode, PhD MIT 2008

Courtesy Tiffany Groode. Used with permission.

GHG Cellulosic Ethanol

Tiffany Groode, PhD MIT 2008

Courtesy Tiffany Groode. Used with permission.

Conclusions Ethanol

Corn grain ethanol:


Considering economics, energy balance, GHG abatement,
not a bad idea, but limited by land constraints
Considerable expansion of corn production negates any
benefits, so subsidies should be restructured to efficiency

Lignocellulosic ethanol
Significantly better environmental performance plus
more availability, but economic cost is a large barrier
Multiple technology advancements must be made to
achieve commercialization, with feedstock logistics
critical

Overall
Potential for nonnegligible (~20%) replacement of

petroleum, but significant investment is required

27

MIT

Why Ethanol?
If one is to use synthetic chemistry, one
can make fuels that are not metabolic
products:
Synthetic Hydrocarbons (Synthetic Natural
Gas, FischerTrpsch Diesel, MTG Gasoline)
Other Alcohols (methanol, propanol,

butanol+)

Dimethyl Ether
Hydrogen?

Properties of possible fuels

Density
(g/cm3)

Lower Heating
Value (MJ/kg)
20
26.9
30.5
33
44

Heat of
Vaporization
(KJ/kg)
1103
840
790
580
350

Fuel

Formula

Molecular
Weight

Methanol
Ethanol
Propanol
Butanol
MTG Gasoline

CH3OH
CH3CH2OH
CH3(CH2)2OH
CH3(CH2)3OH
CH1.85

32.04
46.07
60.1
74.14
~110

0.792
0.785
0.8
0.81
0.75

Fuel

Formula

Molecular
Weight

Density
(g/cm3)

Lower Heating
Value (MJ/kg)

DME

Fischer-

Trpsch Diesel

CH3OCH3

46.07

0.668

28.7

Heat of
Vaporization
(KJ/kg)
467

CH1.8

170

0.8

43

270

Life Cycle Energy Efficiency of

Thermochemical Biofuels

Biomass-to-Wheel Efficiency utilizing best possible distribution method for each fuel

Methanol
Ethanol
Mixed Alcohols
MTG
DME
FT Diesel

0.0%

A. Stark MIT 2008

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

Efficiency %

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

BiomasstoTank Efficiency of

Thermochemical Biofuels

Biomass-to-Tank Efficiency utilizing best distribution method for each fuel

Methanol
Ethanol
Mixed Alcohol
MTG
DME
FT Diesel

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%
Efficiency %

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Fuel Integrability

Fuel
Methanol
Ethanol
Mixed
Alcohol
MTG
Synthetic
Gasoline
FT Diesel
DME

methanol
ethanol
MTG
FTD
DME

Truck
Y
Y

Rail
Y
Y

Pipeline
N
N

Y
Y

Y
Y

Y
Y/N

cost of
shipping per
liter 1000km
$0.050
$0.050
$0.003
$0.003
$0.060

cost of
shipping per
GJ 1000km
$3.141
$2.185
$0.101
$0.095
$3.130

A fuels properties will


dictate whether it is
accepted into the
current fuel
infrastructure
This will greatly
impact the economics
of distribution

EndUse emissions Regulations

Existing emissions regulations will also play a


role in dictating which fuels are used.
The Clean Air Act
Oxygenate requirements
Zero Emission Vehicles
California
methanol
ethanol
mixed alcohol
MTG synthetic gasoline
FT Diesel
DME

CO
Slight reduction
Slight reduction
Slight reduction
No change
Moderate reduction
No change

NOx
Significant reduction
Significant reduction
Slight reduction
Slight increase
Moderate reduction
Moderate reduction

Particulates
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moderate reduction
Significant Reduction

Food Versus Fuel


Landuse changes

ILLUMINATING THE
TRADEOFFS

Food Versus Fuel

Increasing demand for biofuels may


incentivize farmers to switch land away from
food production
Decreasing food supplies
Increasing food prices

Some argue that this was the case in 2008.


Data for making a conclusion either way is

somewhat lacking.

Innovation in agriculture is far outpacing demand


growth.

Landuse Changes

Increasing demand
for biofuels may
incentivize farmers to
put more land into
production
The rainforests for
Photo of soya growing in Brazil removed due to copyright restrictions.
soy/sugar cane

Jatroptha in Indonesia

How do we quantify
these secondary
effects?
Measuring a

counterfactual

The Biofuel Policy Landscape


BlenderTax Credits (Volumetric Ethanol
Excise Tax Credit, VEETC)
45 cents per gallon tax credit for ethanol
blenders.
This year ~9 billion gallons of ethanol were
used
This subsidy creates a perverse incentive to
produce low energy density fuels (ethanol
instead of FischerTrpsch Diesel)

Biofuel Policy Landscape (cont.)

The Energy Independence and Security


Act (EISA) requirements
In 2022 36 billion gallons of biofuel use is
mandated
Of this, majority must be advanced/cellulosic

We are not meeting this target.

EPA limits the percentage of ethanol


which can be blended in RFG
Oxygenate requirements
Blending wall

General Conclusions
No one fuel constitutes a silverbullet
Technology specific subsidies have not
worked and are likely not to work
US biofuel policy is very friendly to
ethanol and will make it hard for other
fuels to enter the market
System thinking is necessary in analyzing
such complex value chains

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

System Dynamics & Sustainable Energy

Presented at:
MIT ESD.166J: Sustainable Energy
Nov. 23, 2010

Presented by:
Katherine Dykes
PhD Candidate, MIT Engineering Systems Division

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

System Dynamics and Sustainable Energy: Outline

Introduction to System Dynamics


Prof. Jay Forrester
System Dynamics in History

Fundamentals of System Dynamics


SD Basics
Fundamental SD Models

SD Models and Energy


World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

SD models and Renewables


Some Previous Models
Simple Diffusion Model Example

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Introduction to System Dynamics

Jay Forrester and the Whirlwind Project


1946-1956: Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE)
program and systems engineering
coincident-current random-access magnetic computer memory
1956: Becomes Professor at MITs Sloan School of Management

Photo by Aboh24 on Wikimedia Commons.

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Introduction to System Dynamics

The Early Days of System Dynamics (19561969)


Consulting with General Electric factory workforce
management
Digital Equipment Corporation Board Member from
1957: issues of fast growth and collapse with hightechnology firms
Industrial Dynamics Published in 1961

Urban Dynamics (1969)


In conjunction with Mayor John Collins of Boston
(group model building)
National attention with many critics

Limits to Growth and World Dynamics (1971)


In conjunction with the Club of Rome
International attention with many critics
2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

System Dynamics and Sustainable Energy: Outline

Introduction to System Dynamics


Prof. Jay Forrester
System Dynamics in History

Fundamentals of System Dynamics


SD Basics
Fundamental SD Models

SD Models and Energy


World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

SD models and Renewables


Some Previous Models
Simple Diffusion Model Example

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fundamentals of System Dynamics

Basics of System Dynamics Modeling


A system of Differential Equations solved using
numerical techniques at a sequence of time-steps
with complex feedback relationships between system
variables
Key Components are:
Simulation model (not optimization model)
Breaks down assumptions related to optimization
(rationality of decision-makers, monetized /
utilitarian value maximization)
Often involves economic, technical AND social
phenomena

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fundamentals of System Dynamics

Key Components are:


Goal-seeking behavior that drives model decisionmaking
Technical systems behave according to physical
characteristics
Economic and social systems can behave
according to different decision-making frameworks
Rational utility maximization
Boundedly rational decision-making (with
potential delays, lack of information, etc)
Heuristics

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fundamentals of System Dynamics


Key Components are:
Closed System Boundary:
Must capture variables relevant to system behavior and structure
Can be as quite broad (always a challenge with this type of
model)
Flexibility in deciding what is endogenous (inside system
boundary) and what is exogenous (outside system boundary)

Policy
Technology
development
and innovation

Endogenous to
system: electricity
demand, supply,
transmission

Weather
and climate
2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fuel prices
What should be
Exogenous to
electric grid
system?

Fundamentals of System Dynamics

Key Components are:


Variable separation into stocks (accumulation over time) and
flows (auxiliary variables)
Feedback and delays: relationships between variables are nonlinear and involve both physical and informational delay
processes
Negative Feedback Loops (Balancing)
Positive Feedback Loops (Reinforcing)

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fundamentals of System Dynamics

Some Fundamental SD Models


System Archetypes from Peter Senge, author of The 5th
Discipline: Systems Thinking: http://www.systems-thinking.org

Reinforcing Loop

Fixes that Fail


Diagrams removed due to copyright restrictions.
Please see Bellinger, Gene. "Archetypes: Interaction
Structures of the Universe." Mental Model Musings, 2004.

Balancing Loop

Drifting Goals

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Limits to Success

Fundamentals of System Dynamics

Basic system dynamic model of the electricity sector


Causal-loop diagram (high level representation of the key
variables of interest and their causal relationships)
What are the key basic variables of interest?
What are the direction of relationships?
Are the directly or inversely related?
Are there any delays in the system?
Intermediate variables of interest?

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fundamentals of System Dynamics

A more complex SD Model Archetypes:


Diffusion and Innovation (the Bass diffusion model)
Who are the potential adopters of a given product (think
consumer products such as iphones)?
What influences them to adopt a product?

Diagram removed due to copyright restrictions.Please see any system dynamics diagram of
diffusion innovation, such as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adoption_SFD.gif.

Above: Sterman (2000) Business Dynamics


2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

System Dynamics and Sustainable Energy: Outline

Introduction to System Dynamics


Prof. Jay Forrester
System Dynamics in History

Fundamentals of System Dynamics


SD Basics
Fundamental SD Models

SD Models and Energy


World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

SD models and Renewables


Some Previous Models
Simple Diffusion Model Example

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

SD Models and Energy

Series of System Dynamic Models in Energy


Early 1970s: development of FOSSIL1/FOSSIL2 displaces use
of Project Independence Evaluation System PIES
1978 ~ 1995, FOSSIL2/IDEAS (Integrated Dynamic Energy
Analysis Simulation) used widely for energy policy evaluation
Mid-1990s, Energy Information Administration introduces
National Energy Modeling System to replace FOSSIL2 model
Energy2020 developed to integrate FOSSIL2 with utility-specific
EPPAM SD Model
ELECTRIC3/ EPPAM4/CPAM/ WSU Models (Ford)

ENERGY2020 (Amlin/Backus)
WORLD 3
(Meadows)
1970

COAL2
(Naill)

FOSSIL1
(Naill/Backus)
1980

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

FOSSIL2/IDEAS
(Naill/Wood)
1990

2000

2010

SD Models and Energy

Energy2020 Basic Model


Structure
Sectors: energy-supply,
energy-demand, pollutionaccounting
Scenario testing with
thousands of policy levers
Includes both fossil-fuel and
renewable energy sources
Includes industry, electricity,
transportation and other
energy uses
Detailed historical data used
to calibrate model

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Diagrams removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 1.1, 3.6 in "Modeling of Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Measures to Support the Implementation
of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32):
ENERGY 2020 Model Inputs and Assumptions." Systematic
Solutions, Inc., February 1, 2010.

Review of Some Models on Wind and Diffusion

Electric sector
model for capacity
expansion
Looks at shifting
electricity demand
profile and
generation asset mix
over time
Includes different
time-scales of
interest (hours, days,
months and years)
Includes endogenous
demand elasticity,
technology learning
and economies of
scale
2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 15.8 in Vogstad, Klaus-Ole. "A System
Dynamics Analysis of the Nordic Electricity Market: The Transition
from Fossil Fuelled Toward a Renewable Supply within a Liberalised
Electricity Market." Doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, December 2004.

Review of Some Models on Wind and Diffusion

Few System Dynamics Models focused on Diffusion and


Incorporation of Renewables into Electricity Sector
Combine capacity expansion framework with diffusion
framework for new technology (i.e. Dyner 2006)
Adds influence of different exogenous policy mechanisms
Some attempt at estimating R&D spending influence on costs
Scope trade-off: detailed model of specific technology versus
large interactions across system variables
Image removed due to copyright restrictions.
Please see Fig. 3 in Dyner, Isaac, and Monica Marcela Zuluaga.
"SD for Addressing the Diffusion of Wind Power in Latin America:
The Colombian Case." 24th International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, July 23-27, 2006.

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

System Dynamics and Sustainable Energy: Outline

Introduction to System Dynamics


Prof. Jay Forrester
System Dynamics in History

Fundamentals of System Dynamics


SD Basics
Fundamental SD Models

SD Models and Energy


World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

SD models and Renewables


Some Previous Models
Simple Diffusion Model Example

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

SD Models and Renewables

Why diffusion framework?


Adoption of new technologies: wind energy, solar power,
distributed generation, electric vehicles, storage

What caveats?
Complex interaction with larger technical system

Potential solutions?
Combine with optimization based models such as economicbased capacity expansion models (two interconnected models)
Bring technical complexities into a diffusion model for the
technology (try to capture system interaction within system
dynamics space)

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Revisiting wind energy

Historically inconsistent US federal policy for wind


energy

2400
1900
1400
900

US
1Wiser,

Denmark

R and Bolinger, M. (2008). Annual Report on US Wind Power: Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends. US
Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [USDOE EERE].
2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2005

2003

2001

1999

1997

1995

1993

1991

1989

1987

1985

-100

1983

400
1981

PTC Expirations

Delta-Generation Capacity [MW]

Periodic expiration of Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 1999,


2001, and 2003 cause collapse in industry growth
Financial crisis in 2009 diminish viability of PTC causing shift of
emphasis by AWEA towards national renewable electricity
standard (RES)
Annual Change in Wind Generation Capacity for US

Revisiting wind energy: policy support for wind


Main Policy Categories In Place for Promotion of Wind
Energy
Feed-In Tariffs (+ Added
Incentives) - Predominantly
Europe

12%
22%

Standard / Quota (+ Penalties


/ Incentives / Certificates) Some use US and Europe

20%

Standalone Incentives (Tax


Credits, Subsidies, Grants,
Premiums) - Predominantly US
46%

Data sources: IEA 1997, GWEC 2008, DSIRE 2009, AWEA 2009.

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Feed-In Tariffs and Quota (+


Added Incentives) Predominantly Eastern Europe

Cases
Germany,
Spain,
Portugal,
Denmark
Colorado,
Illinois
California,
Idaho

Simple Diffusion Model for Wind Energy

Basic Model Design:


Bass diffusion model using word of mouth and direct advertising
substituted:
primary reinforcing loop (increased familiarity with wind technology)
primary balancing loop (depletion of high wind resource sites
profitable for development)

Policy, electricity price, costs and demand treated as exogenous

(Demo of simple wind diffusion model)


2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Wind Energy Diffusion Model Development

Endogenous Factors:
Learning curve and
technology improvement
Both utility and
community acceptance
Electricity prices
System costs
System integration
Land-use
Industry capacity

Sub-model
development for each
area
2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Whats With Wind

Thanks!
Q&A

2007 ESS, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Electrochemical Approaches to
Electrical Energy Storage
Donald R. Sadoway
Department of Materials Science & Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307

outline
the energy storage landscape
an electrometallurgical approach
to large-scale storage
portable storage: beyond lithium

misconceptions about batteries


not much has changed: not true!

electrical energy storage


(Wh/kg)

(MJ/kg)

lead acid

35

0.13

NiCd

45

0.16

NaS

80

0.28

NiMH

90

0.32

Li ion

150

gasoline

12000

0.54
43

misconceptions about batteries


not much has changed: not true!
no Moores Law (transistor count 2x every 2 years):
the battery is an electrochemical device
2 interfacial reactions, each drawing upon reagents
transported from contiguous volumes
mass and charge transport required
all microelectronics are silicon-based:
device performance improvements come from
better manufacturing capabilities
all new batteries are based on entirely new chemistries
radical innovation

different approaches for


different applications
dont pay for attributes you dont need
cell phone needs to be idiot-proof
car needs to be crashworthy
safety is a premium in both applications
how about service temperature?
human contact?
stationary batteries: more freedom in choice of
chemistry but very low price point

market price points


application

price point

laptop computer

$2,000 - $3,000 / kWh

communications

$1,000 / kWh

automobile traction

$100 - 200 / kWh

stationary storage

$50 / kWh

severity of service conditions

price

storage is the key enabler


for deployment of renewables: unless their intermittency
can be addressed they cannot contribute to baseload
even if you had 100% conversion efciency in
photovoltaics they still wouldnt make it in much of the
marketplace
in grid-level storage we need to think about the problem
differently when combustion is an option:
batteries invented for portable applications are not
scalable at an acceptable price point
stringing together thousands of Li-ion batteries wont do:
here the whole is less than the sum of its parts

storage is the key enabler


smart grid requires rapid response capability
colossal electric cache

August 13, 2003


9:21 p.m. EDT

August 14, 2003

9:03 p.m. EDT

Images by NOAA/DMSP.

10

storage is the key enabler


smart grid requires rapid response capability
colossal electric cache
transmission line congestion
colossal electric cache
load leveling
colossal electric cache
load following
colossal electric cache

accelerating the rate of discovery


there is plenty of room at the top:
we are not up against any natural laws of nature yet
time to start thinking beyond lithium
the eld is woefully underfunded by government:
energy research in total $1.4B (2006) < 1979 gure
c.f. medical research rose by 4 to $29B
the private sector research spending is even bleaker:
US energy industry < 0.25% revenues
c.f. pharmaceuticals 18%
semiconductors 16%
automotive 3%

accelerating the rate of discovery


more money more people
sustained effort the brightest minds
new approaches: computational materials science
Volta partners with Schrdinger, i.e., bring
quantum mechanics to battery engineering
high-throughput computing screens candidate
materials before lab testing begins
conne chemistry to earth-abundant elements
readily available, i.e., not to those potentially
subject to cartel pricing

how to think about inventing in


this space
look at the economy of scale of modern
electrometallurgy: aluminium smelter
bauxite, cryolite, petroleum coke, capital cost of
$5000/annual tonne, 14 kWh/kg
virgin metal for less than $1.00/kg
how is this possible?
we dont make aluminium in little beakers
to make metal by the tonne we have giant cells,
literally large halls in which liquid metal pools on a
single cathode spread over the entire oor

a modern aluminium smelter


1886

Charles Martin Hall, USA


Paul L.T. Hroult, France

15 m 3 m 1 km 0.8 Acm2

15

16

17

18

how to think about inventing in this space:


pose the right question
start with a giant current sink
convert this

into this

Heavy
Duty
Batter
y

aluminium potline
350,000 A, 4 V

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Donald Sadoway.

The result of work started 3 years ago under sponsorship


by the MIT Deshpande Center and the Chesonis Family
Foundation:

reversible ambipolar electrolysis, a.k.a.,

liquid metal battery

Molten Magnesium
Electrolyte

Refractory
lining

Molten Antimony

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

on discharge

Mg(liquid)

2
+
Mg

Sb(liquid) + 3

liquid
metal
battery

e-

+ 2

3
Sb

Molten Magnesium
Electrolyte

Refractory
lining

refra

Molten Antimony

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

21

cell section after cycling 48 h at 700C

electropositive

anode

molten salt

electrolyte

electronegative

cathode

22

attributes of all-liquid battery


all-liquid construction eliminates
reliance on solid-state diffusion

long service life
liquid-liquid interfaces are kinetically
the fastest in all of electrochemistry

low activation overvoltage

23

attributes of all-liquid battery


all-liquid construction eliminates any
reliance on solid-state diffusion

long service life
liquid-liquid interfaces are kinetically
the fastest in all of electrochemistry

low activation overvoltage
all-liquid conguration is self-assembling
expected to be scalable at low cost
24

H
Li

Rejection criteria

Candidate electrode metals


Negative electrode

Radioactive, rare, toxic, sublimates

Positive electrode

Be

He

Non-metal

Expensive (> $ 400 / kg)


o

High melting point (> 1000 C)

Ne

Al

Si

Cl

Ar

Multiple oxidation states

Na

Mg

Ca

Sc

Ti

Cr

Mn

Fe

Co

Ni

Cu

Zn

Ga

Ge

As

Se

Br

Kr

Rb

Sr

Zr

Nb

Mo

Tc

Ru

Rh

Pd

Ag

Cd

In

Sn

Sb

Te

Xe

Cs

Ba

La

Hr

Ta

Re

Os

Ir

Pt

Au

Hg

Tl

Pb

Bi

Po

At

Rn

Fr

Ra

Ac

Ce

Pr

Nd

Pm

Sm

Eu

Gd

Tb

Dy

Ho

Er

Tm

Yb

Lu

Th

Pa

Np

Pu

Am

Cm

Bk

Cf

Es

Fm

Md

No

Lr

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

25

cost / performance
better than lithium-ion, cheaper than lead acid

???

Liquid Metal Battery

27

opportunities for basic science


database is spotty: alloys lacking
widespread commercial use
theory not ready to predict properties of
liquid metals and alloys
properties must be measured
emf data in molten salts require verication
with candidate metal couples
,
...trust, but verify...

28

activity measurements of Ca - Bi alloys

scaling laws: towards self-heating cell

32

33

next steps
cycle performance data
analysis of failure modes
self heating cell
cell optimization
cost model
34

tethered in the wireless age portable power

enabling radical innovation:

biomedical devices

transportation

Images of an implantable defibrillator and an electric car have been removed due to copyright restrictions.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

motivation

Imagine driving this:

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

motivation (continued)

without the need for this:

Image by Mirjana Chamberlain-Vucic on Flickr.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

relevant enabling technology

Heavy
Duty
Batter
y

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Donald Sadoway.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The message

Theres plenty of room at the top:


we are far from hitting the
ceiling set by nature.
The road to success is paved
with advanced materials.
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

A bit of automotive history


1888 Frederick Kimball, Boston:
first electric passenger car
why now the renewed interest?
answer: CARB
to improve urban air quality
CARB set new standards, including...
CARB Implementation Dates for ZEVs
1998 2% new car sales

2001 5% new car sales

2003 10% new car sales

1991 NESCAUM formed


1992 MA adopts CA standards
in the minds of many policy makers, ZEV implies EV
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Problems with EV propulsion


1. range: function of energy density of the battery.
Compare gasoline @ 13,000 (theo.) / 2600 Wh/kg
with the lead-acid battery @ 175 (theo.) / 35 Wh/kg
2. time to refuel: charge 40 kWh in 5 minutes?
220 V 2200 A!!!
When you pump gasoline @ 20 /min,
your energy transfer rate is about 10 MW!
(Hint: energy density of gasoline is 10 kWhth/.)

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Problems with EV propulsion


3. cost:
(1) light but safe means higher materials costs,

e.g., less steel, more aluminum;

and higher processing costs,


e.g., fewer castings, more forgings...
(2) to reduce load on the battery requires

high efficiency appliances costly

(3) low cycle life batteries priced @ $4,000 to $8,000


lasting about 2 years
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Battery basics
what is a battery?
a device for exploiting chemical energy
to perform electrical work
i.e., an electrochemical power source
the design paradigm?
choose a chemical reaction with
a large driving force (G) and fast kinetics

to cause the reaction to occur by steps


involving electron transfer
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

A simple chemical reaction

PbO2 + Pb + H2SO4(aq)

2 H2O + PbSO4
intimate mixing of all reactants

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Same reaction, but not so simple


Pb + SO42(aq)

PbSO4 + 2 e

PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42(aq) + 2 e


2 H2O + PbSO4
reactants physically separated

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Electrons in motion
Pb + SO42(aq)

PbSO4 + 2 e

PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42(aq) + 2 e


2 H2O + PbSO4

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Electrons in motion
PbSO4 + 2 e Pb + SO42(aq)
2 H2O + PbSO4
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42(aq) + 2 e

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The lead-acid battery


anode:

Pb + SO42(aq)
0
Pb

2+
Pb

PbSO4 + 2 e

n
(oxid )

2e

cathode:
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42(aq) + 2 e

2 H2O + PbSO4
4+
Pb

Sadoway

+ 2

10.391J Sustainable Energy

2+
Pb

n
(red )

November 23, 2010

Lead-acid battery on discharge

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Donald Sadoway.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The nickel metal-hydride battery


cathode:
NiOOH(aq) + 2 H2O + e
Ni(OH)2(aq) + OH(aq)
anode:
MH + OH(aq) M + H2O + e

electrolyte: 30% KOH(aq) (alkaline)


Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The nickel metal-hydride battery


cathode:
NiOOH(aq) + 2 H2O + e
Ni(OH)2(aq) + OH(aq)
3+
Ni

2+
Ni

anode:
MH + OH(aq) M + H2O + e

H
Sadoway

+
H

+ e

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The lithium ion battery


anode (-)

Liin carbon

+
Li

cathode (+)
+
Li
+
Li

+ LixCoO2 Li1+xCoO2
+

4+
Co

+
Li

3+
Co

electrolyte: 1 M LiPF6 in
1:1 ethylene carbonate propylene carbonate
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Battery Performance Metrics

[1] J.-M. Tarascon and M. Armand, Nature 414, 359 - 367 (2001)

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature.

Sadoway

Ragone plot

Source: Tarascon, J. M., and M. Armand. "Issues and Challenges Facing Rechargeable Lithium Batteries." Nature 414 (2001). 2001.

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Warhol, Marilyn Diptych (1962) Tate Gallery

Please see Andy Warhol, "Marilyn Diptych," 1962.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Sadoway, GM EV1 Diptych (2005) Private Collection

1 Wh/kg storage capacity

1 mile driving range

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

USABC Long-term Performance Goals


operating temp.

-40 to 85C

specific energy

200 Wh/kg @ C/3

energy density

300 Wh/L @ C/3

specific power

400 W/kg

power density

600 W/L

cycle life

1000 cycles @ 80% DOD

service life

10 years

ultimate price

~ $100/kWh for 40 kWh packs

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

new thresholds in performance


Today

LiCoO2, LiNiO2, LiFe(PO4) all use only one electron per


metal (e.g. Co4+/Co3+)

47.88

22

50.9415

Ti
Titanium

23

V
Vanadium

51.9961

24

Cr
Chromium

54.93805

25

55.847

Mn
Manganese

26

58.93320

Fe
Iron

27

58.6934

Co
Cobalt

28

Ni
Nickel

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

theoretical capacity limited << 300 mAh/g


The Future compounds where metal cycles
over multiple redox steps
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

breaking the one-electron barrier


In the presence of Mn,
+
Li

2e

+
+ LiXNiO2 Li1+XNiO2

Li+ + 2e- + Ni4+ Li+ + Ni2+

theoretical capacity
G. Ceder, MIT

600 mAh/g !
540 Wh/kg !
c.f. 150 Wh/kg in Li ion
two-electron change around Ni
upon Li intercalation
Courtesy of Gerbrand Ceder. Used with permission.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

breaking the one-electron barrier

Your wildest dream


Li+ + 3e- + LiXCrO3 Li1+XCrO3
+
Li

3e

6+
Cr

+
Li

3+
Cr

theoretical capacity
1000 mAh/g !
700 Wh/kg ! 700 mi
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

breaking the one-electron barrier

Your wildest dream


Li+ + 3e- + LiXMnO4 Li1+XMnO4
+
Li

3e

7+
Mn

+
Li

4+
Mn

theoretical capacity
1000 mAh/g !
700 Wh/kg ! 700 mi
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

supervalent battery: beyond lithium


energy density (ion charge)2
can Li become a strategic resource?

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

limitations of lithium

Please see: Abuelsamid, Sam. "Forget Peak Oil. Are We Facing Peak Lithium?" AutoblogGreen,
January 30, 2007. LaMonica, Martin. "Electric-Car Race Could Strain Lithium Battery Supply."
CNET Green Tech, October 31, 2008. Kempf, Herve. "Limited Lithium Supplies Could Restrict
Electric Car Growth." EV World, October 9, 2008. Kahya, Damian. "Bolivia Holds Key to Electric
Car Future." BBC News, November 9, 2008. "The Trouble with Lithium 2: Under the Microscope."
Meridian International Research, May 29, 2008.

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

supervalent battery: beyond lithium


energy density (ion charge)2
can Li become a strategic resource?
with MITEI support we have begun
searching for redox couples based upon
ions of valence 3, e.g.,

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

3+
Al

November 23, 2010

supervalent battery: beyond lithium


energy density (ion charge)2
can Li become a strategic resource?
with MITEI support we have begun
searching for redox couples based upon
ions of valence 3, e.g.,

3+
Al

not just intercalation reactions but also


metatheticals
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The hydrogen fuel cell


anode:
H2 2 H+ + 2 e
cathode:

O2 + 2 H+ + 2 e H2O

electrolyte:
proton (H+) conductor,
i.e., proton exchange membrane (PEM)
both electrode reactions occur on substrates
made of platinum-group metals
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The hydrogen fuel cell


anode:
H2 2 H+ + 2 e
cathode:

O2 + 2 H+ + 2 e H2O

electrolyte:
proton (H+) conductor,
i.e., proton exchange membrane (PEM)
both electrode reactions occur on substrates
made of platinum-group metals
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

The hydrogen fuel cell


technical issues:
hydrogen on board? pure H2? LaNi5?
generation of hydrogen?
water electrolysis?
cracking of natural gas or even gasoline?

electrode stability:
corrosion, contamination, mechanical disturbance,
conversion efficiency

electrolyte stability: breakdown, impurities


Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

potential showstoppers

Cost: noble-metal electrodes


Cost: no infrastructure
for H2 delivery
Effectiveness: will this truly
reduce CO2 emissions?
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

in summary
One size does not t all:

different applications call for different power sources.

Batteries have been around for a long time:


user community justiably frustrated at present state
of battery development.
Big changes are under way:
ingress of materials scientists invigorating the eld;
computational materials science accelerating the rate
of discovery if we make the investment.
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

in summary

Development of human resources:


electrochemical science & engineering need


sustained support to attract and retain the
best and brightest

Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Bibliography
1. Batteries and Electric Cells, Secondary,
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
4th edition, Vol. 3, Wiley Interscience, New York,
1992, pp. 569-670.
2. Electrochemical Power for Transportation,
E.J. Cairns and E.T. Hietbrink, Comprehensive
Treatise of Electrochemistry, Vol. 3, Plenum,
New York, 1981, pp. 421-504.
3. Handbook of Batteries, 3rd ed.,
David Linden and Thomas B. Reddy, editors,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Bibliography
4. Michael Schnayerson, The Car That Could,
Random House, New York, 1996.
5. R. de Neufville, S.R. Connors, F.R. Field, III,
D. Marks, D.R. Sadoway, and R.D. Tabors,

The Electric Car Unplugged,

Technology Review, 99, 30-36 (1996).

6. Donald R. Sadoway and Anne M. Mayes,


Portable Power: Advanced Rechargeable Lithium Batteries,
MRS Bulletin, August, 2002.
Sadoway

10.391J Sustainable Energy

November 23, 2010

Volta
Museum
Como, Italy

The End

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

The Energy Crisis

A Neglected Solution

Leon Glicksman

Building Technology Program

December, 2010

U.S. Energy Flow 2004

(Quadrillion BTU)

DOE Energy Information Admin.

Solutions?

Drill in Alaska
Hydrogen Fuel for Cars
Renewable Energy Sources
Nuclear
Nuclear
Clean Coal
Energy Efficiency
Economic Stagnation

U.S. Energy Flow 2004

Traditional Solution Focus

DOE Energy Information Admin.

U.S. Energy Flow 2004

Neglected Focus

DOE Energy Information Admin.

New York Times


April 6, 2008
Circles sized according to the
amount of energy that sector
consumes

Article from New York Times removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Marsh, Bill. "Wasted Energy." New York Times, April 6, 2008.

US Energy Consumption

U.S. Energy Use


28%
Transportation

39%
Buildings

Industrial

33%

U.S. Buildings
38 % of total energy ( in UK 50 % )
67 % of electricity
90% of time spent indoors
Major health problems: indoor climate

climate

U.S. Electricity Production Energy Sources 2003

Petroleum Subtotal
Natural Gas
Steam Coal
Nuclear Power
Renewable Energy/Other

US DOE EIA

1Quad = 10 15 BTU

Total Quads = 184

Average Lifetime of Buildings

Source: Costar data base. 5 e p m ber 2003


*Median Age incorporates building renovation dates as beginning
dates of buildings.

United States Commercial Buildings

Average Age of US Cars and Trucks

US Dept of Transportation

Exudes Green

vs.

Green Performance

Heritage 2000 Artists Rendering

Concept drawing of the Ford Rouge Center renovation project removed due to copyright restrictions.

The Conde Nast Building


15 kW of PV
500 kW of fuel cells
Sustainable??

Photo by Rustycale on Wikimedia Commons.

Aberdeen

Edinburgh
Glasgow
Belfast

Newcastle

Liverpool
Nottingham

Birmingham
London
Cardiff

Southampton
Plymouth
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Please see Talman, C. F., and Francis Keally. "Now the Windowless Building
with its Own Climate." New York Times, August 10, 1930, pp. XX4.

Energy Efficient

Copenhagen: Cooled only by Natural

Ventilation

Photo of Aston IT headquarters in Copenhagen removed due to copyright restrictions.

Not very energy efficient

Photo by Lars K on Flickr.

Near Heathrow Airport

Photo of energy efficient building near Heathrow Airport removed due to copyright restrictions.

Some promising technologies

Natural Ventilation for Commercial

Buildings
Reduce Energy Consumption

Improve Indoor Air Quality


Improve Productivity

Energy performance and good design

Photo by Bob Gorman on Flickr.

San Francisco Federal Building


Morphosis

Zion National Park Visitor Center

Photo by Niels van Eck on Flickr.

Use of Solar Energy

Acceptable Interior Lighting Level :


1/10 to 1/100 of exterior level
Associated thermal load of solar less than that
for artificial lighting
How to control it?
How to bring it deeper into interior?

Enhancing daylight deeper in rooms

Anidolics (based on non-imaging


optics: research made at LESO
PB/EPFL)

Photos show 2 identical rooms at the

same time, one equipped with an anidol


system, the other without

Diagrams and photos of LESO-PB anidolic systems research removed due to copyright restrictions

Greening the Tech Campus: MITs

Campus Energy Initiative

Energy Council

Research

Education Task
Force

Campus Energy
Task Force Walking the
Talk

MIT should be a leader: A model for others

New Energy Conservation Investments


Recent allocation of $500,000 for strategic energy


conservation measures including lighting retrofits,
building continuous commissioning, fume hood
sash controls
Monitoring of performance improvement,
economics
Establish energy savings, return on investment
Prototype for larger scale programs
A model for others

Retrofit of one East Campus Parallel

MIT Building 18 at 2PM

Steve Amanti

5PM

2AM

Energy Efficient Ventilation Design for New

Cancer Research Facility

Photo by Dan4th Nicholas on Flickr.

New Sloan School Building Anticipated to


Achieve LEED Gold

Architect's rendering of MIT Building E62 removed due to copyright restrictions.

Image removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. 23 in "Energy Future: Think Efficiency."
American Physical Society, September 2008.

Energy Efficient

Photos of terraced houses removed


due to copyright restrictions.

Swedish Homes

Comfortable

No Central
Heating
System!

Genzyme Cambridge MA

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Genzyme

Cambridge

Photo by Mike Champion on Flickr.

Photos of office space in the Genzyme Center, Cambridge, MA removed due to copyright restrictions.

Cost of Energy Efficiency

Evidence from Certified Projects

Cost / Performance - It Depends


450

400

350

300

Cost $/sqft

Certified
250

200

150

100

50

Silver

Gold

Platinum

Consumption
Annual Energy Consumptio
n [kWh/m2]

Retrofit of Office Buildings in Norway

Post 1997 Lisa Engblom

Reference Case

300

HVAC &
Controls

250

Add One
Facade
Element

Moderate Controls, Fan,


Heat Exchange
Add Other
Facade
Elements

200

Extreme Controls, Hot


Water, HP, Fan, HX

150
100

Extreme Controls, Hot


Water, HP, Fan, HX,
Lights, Office Equipment

50
0

Moderate Controls, Heat


Pump, Fan, Heat
Exchanger

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400


Cost [$ / m2]

Extreme Controls, Hot


Water, HP, Fan, HX,
Lights, Office
Equipment, Windows

Energy Costs in 92 Best Practice

Office Buildings K. Steemers, Cambridge Univ,

Annual Energy Costs in 92 Office Buildings

Energy costs /m2

40

30
20

10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Offices
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Electric Power Costs

Technology
Nuclear
Gas/Combined Cycle
Coal
Renewable

Wind
Biomass (25MW)

Cents/kWe-hr
4-7
4-6
4

Small Hydro
Solar Thermal Electric
Solar PV
Efficiency of Consumption
Advanced Buildings

5-10
12-18
30-80

3-8
4-9

0-6

Sources: Deutch and Moniz, MIT study 2003; Langcake, Renewable Energy
World, 2003; Kats, California study, 2003

Promoting Sustainable Buildings

Environmental gains
Sustainable buildings pay for themselves
Sustainable buildings please occupants
Why arent they more widespread?

Why arent they more widespread?

Lowest First Cost


Lack of Incentives
Reluctance to change
Uncertainty, fear of poor results
Litigation Fears
Difficulty in
Difficulty
in conv
convincing
incing developers,
developers, designers,
designers,
government officials
Lack of knowledge about new technologies,
materials
Performance Projections
Results from New Buildings

New approaches and partnerships are needed

Images removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see Fig. ES-4, ES-5 in Turner, Cathy, and Mark Frankel.
"Energy Performance of LEED for New Construction Buildings."
U.S. Green Building Council, March 4, 2008.

Critical Design Stage:

Early Conceptual Phase

Major Design Decisions


Orientation

Overall form

Technologies
Technologi
es

Sketch phase of design


Details undetermined
Comparisons of different concepts needed

The Need for an Integrated Team

and Solution at the Outset

Outset

Integrated Design and Operation







h
^












^

^
Shared
K


^



,s
K

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

&
D

,
^



K
K

Integrated design and operation of building and its systems

State-of-the-Art

Customer

Architect

Building
Engineer

Control
Engineer
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/2.650J/10.291J/10.391J/11.371J/

22.081J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.

PROBABILISTIC RISK
ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION OF THE BASIC


ELEMENTS OF PROBABILISTIC RISK
(PRA) ANALYSES

Fault Trees
Risk
Data
Uncertainties

Nuclear Power Plant PRA Structure


Typical Results

THE PRE-PRA ERA

(prior to 1975)

Management of (unquantified at the time) uncertainty was


always a concern.
Defense-in-depth and safety margins became embedded in the
regulations.
Defense-in-Depth is an element of the NRCs safety philosophy
that employs successive compensatory measures to prevent
accidents
damage if a malfunction,
accidents or mitigate
mitigate damage
malfunction, accident,
accident, or
naturally caused event occurs at a nuclear facility.
[Commissions White Paper, February, 1999]
Design Basis Accidents are postulated accidents that a nuclear
facility must be designed and built to withstand without loss to
the systems, structures, and components necessary to assure
public health and safety.

TECHNOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT

Study the system as an integrated socio-technical system.


Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) supports Risk Management
by answering the questions:

What can go w
wrong?
rong? ((accident
accident sequences
sequences or scenarios)
scenarios)

How likely are these scenarios?

What are their consequences?

Risk = Expected consequences =

Probi Consequencei
Sequences,i
4

DEFINITION OF RISK

Event Risk Vector (Set) of Expected Consequences Fromran Event

For an Event of Type i, the Associated Risk Vector, R i


,

r
r
R i = C i = (Probability of Event, i) * (Set of Consequences of Event, i)
= [(Frequency of Event, i) * (Time Interval of Interest)] * (Set
of Consequences of Event, i)

CORE DAMAGE RISK DUE TO N


DIFFERENT CORE DAMAGE EVENTS
r
R total

Consequence1, i
N r
N

= Ri = pi

i =1
i =1
Consequence

M, i

Total Risk is the Sum Over All Possible Events of


the Risks Associated with Each Event, Respectively

RISK CALCULATION
Ca

Cb
Risk =

Ci p i =
C =

i, All Event

Sequences

C n

Vector of consequences associated with the ith event sequence

Probability of the ith event sequence


Mean, or expected, consequence vector
Mean, or expected, consequence of type a, summed over all
event sequences
EXAMPLE
Offsite acute fatalities due to event i
Offsite latent fatalities due to event i
Onsite acture fatalities due to event i
Ci = Onsite latent fatalities due to event i
property loss due to event i
Offsite
Onsite property loss due to event i
Costs to other NPPs due to event i
Ci
pi
C
Ca

=
=
=
=

THE HAZARD

(some fission-product isotopes)

Isotope

Half-Life

Volatility

Health Hazard

8d

Gaseous

External whole-body
radiation; internal
irradiation of thyroid;
high

54 y

Moderately
volatile

Bones and lungs

106Ru

1y

Highly volatile

Kidneys

137Cs

33 y

Highly volatile

Internal hazard
to whole body

131I

toxicity
toxicity
89Sr

P
P0

Decay power to reactor power ratio, P/P0

DECAY HEAT

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4
10-1

10

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

Time after shutdown(s) (seconds)


1-hour

1-day 1-week 1-month 1-year

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Todreas & Kazimi,


Nuclear Systems Volume I: Thermal Hydraulic Fundamentals.

THE FARMER LINE


10-3
High risk

Frequency

10-4
Fa
rm

10-5
10-6
10-7

Far
m

er.
slo
er.
pe
slo
of
-1
pe
of
-1.
5

Low risk

10-8
10-9
103

104

105

106

107

108

Iodine-131 Release Magnitude (Curies)


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

CRITICAL SAFETY FUNCTIONS

HARDWARE / TRAINING /

PROCEDURES / CULTURE

KEEP FISSION PRODUCTS WITHIN THE FUEL


Control Reactor Power
Control reactivity additions
Shutdown reliably
Cool the Reactor and Spent Fuel
Maintain coolant inventory
Maintain coolant flow
Maintain coolant heat sinks
KEEP RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL OUT OF THE BIOSPHERE
Maintain Containment Integrity
Prevent over-pressurization
Prevent over-heating
Prevent containment bypass
Capture Material Within Containment
Scrubbing
Deposition
Chemical capture
SHIELD PERSONNEL FROM RADIATION
10

EMERGENCY SAFETY FUNCTIONS

Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400

11

REACTOR SAFETY STUDY

(WASH-1400; 1975)

Prior Beliefs:
1. Protect against large LOCA.
2. CDF is low (about once every 100 million years, 10-8 per
reactor year) .
3. Consequences of accidents would be disastrous.
Major Findings:
1. Dominant contributors: Small LOCAs and Transients.
2. CDF higher than earlier believed (best estimate: 5x10-5, once
every 20,000 years; upper bound: 3x10-4 per reactor year, once
every 3,333 years).
3. Consequences significantly smaller.
4. Support systems and operator actions very important.
12

RISK CURVES

Frequency of Fatalities Due to Man-Caused Events (RSS)


13

Source: Reactor Safety Study, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, WASH-1400.

RISK ASSESSMENT

REVIEW GROUP

We are unable to define whether the overall probability of a


core melt given in WASH-1400 is high or low, but we are certain
that the error bands are understated.

WASH-1400 is "inscrutable."

"the fault -tree/event-tree methodology is sound, and both can


and should be more widely used by NRC."

"PSA methods should be used to deal with generic safety issues,


to formulate new regulatory requirements, to assess and
revalidate existing regulatory requirements, and to evaluate new
designs."

14

COMMISSION ACTIONS

(Jan. 18, 1979)

the Commission has reexamined its views regarding the


Study in light of the Review Groups critique.

The Commission withdraws any explicit or implicit past


endorsement of the Executive Summary.

the Commission does not regard as reliable the Reactor


Safety Studys numerical estimate of the overall risk of reactor
accidents.

15

NPP: END STATES

Various states of degradation of the reactor core.


Release of radioactivity from the containment.
Individual risk.
Numbers of early and latent deaths.
Number of injuries.
Land contamination.

16

NPP: INITIATING EVENTS

Transients

Loss of offsite power

Turbine trip

Others

Loss-of-Coolant Accidents (LOCAs)

Small LOCA

Medium LOCA

Large LOCA

17

LOSS-OF-OFFSITE-POWER
EVENT TREE
LOOP

Secondary
Heat Removal

Bleed
& Feed

Recirc.

Core
OK
OK

PDSi
PDSj

18

ILLUSTRATION EVENT TREE:

Station Blackout Sequences

LOSP

DGs

0.07 per yr

0.993
0.007

Seal
LOCA

EFW

EP Rec.

0.95

0.99
0.01

0.05

0.94
0.06

Cont.

END
STATE
success

success
success
core melt
melt
core melt w/ release
success
core melt
4.70E-06
core melt w/ release
success
core melt
1.50E-06
core melt w/ release

Courtesy of K. Kiper. Used with permission.

From: K. Kiper, MIT Lecture, 2006


19

PRA MODEL OVERVIEW AND


SUBSIDIARY OBJECTIVES
CDF
10-4/ry

Level I

PLANT
MODEL

LERF
10-5/ry

QHOs

Level III

Level II

CONTAINMENT
MODEL

SITE/CONSEQUENCE
MODEL

Results

Results

Results

Accident
sequences
leading to
plant damage
states

Containment
failure/release
sequences

Public health
effects
PLANT MODE
At-power Operation
Shutdown / Transition
Evolutions

SCOPE
Internal Events
External Events

Uncertainties

20

LOSP DISTRIBUTION
Epistemic Uncertainties
5th
0.005/yr (200 yr)
Median
0.040/yr (25 yr)
Mean
0.070/yr (14 yr)
95th
0.200/yr ( 5 yr)

Courtesy of K. Kiper. Used with permission.

From: K. Kiper, MIT Lecture, 2006

OFFSITE POWER RECOVERY


CURVES
90th Percentile

50th Percentile

10th Percentile
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

0.5
.5
0

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time After Power Failure (Hr)

Courtesy of K. Kiper. Used with permission.

From: K. Kiper, MIT Lecture, 2006

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT 1 & 2 PWR A2


STATION BLACKOUT EVENT TREE

South Texas Project 1 & 2, Rev 2QA, Fig. 2-2, p. 2-7.


23

LOGIC SYMBOLS (GATES)


Operation, OR

Operation, AND

Meaning:
Meaning:
Event A occurs when either
event B or C occurs

Meaning:
Meaning:
Event A occurs when both events
B and C occur

Venn Diagrams

24

CONSIDER SYSTEM MINIMAL CUT

SETS A & B

SUCCESS

FAILURE

Prob Failure = ProbA + ProbB - [Prob (B/A) ProbA]


= ProbA + ProbB - (ProbA ProbB)
if A & B are independent
For a Good System:
ProbA, ProbB << 1 and ProbA ProbB << ProbA or ProbB, and
Prob Failure ProbA + ProbB (rare event approximation)

25

ILLUSTRATION OF ELEMENT
OF FAULT TREE ELEMENTS
TOP EVENT

OR Gate

INTERMEDIATE
EVENT, A

AND Gate

A1

A2

Basic
Event
A1

Basic
Event
A2

INCOMPLETELY
DEVELOPED
EVENT, B

2
Transfer in
from Sheet 2

26

AN EXAMPLE OF A PUMPING
SYSTEM
T1
Fuel
Source

T2
Fuel
Source

Control Valve
V1

P1

Pump Train 1

P2 P2

Emergency
Diesel
Engine

Control Valve
V2
Pump Train 2

Electric
Power
Source, E
Control
System, C
Cooling
System,
CO

27

FAULT TREE FOR THE FUEL


PUMPING SYSTEM

28

FAULT TREE FOR THE FUEL


PUMPING SYSTEM

29

CUT SETS AND

MINIMAL CUT SETS

CUT SET: A cut set is any set of failures of


components and actions sufficient to cause system
failure.

MINIMAL CUT SET: A minimal cut set is a set of


failures necessary to cause system failure. A minimal
cut set contains only a single cut set.

30

PUMPING SYSTEM EXAMPLE

MINIMAL CUT SETS

Any Binary Combination of an Element of

T1, Tank

T2, Tank

P1, Pump
and of
P2, Pump

V2, Valve

V1, Valve

Train 1

C
E
CO

Control System
Electric Power Source
Cooling System

Train 2

Dependent Failure of
Pumping Train 1 and 2

Failure of Any Minimal Cut Set Will Result in System Failure


31

VENN DIAGRAM FOR FUEL


SYSTEM SUPPLY FAILURE
E

CO

Train 1

Train 2

Trains 1 & 2
33

ILLUSTRATION OF DE-COMPOSITION OF
TOP EVENT INTO A COMBINATION OF
MINIMAL CUT SETS
T = E1 E2

(1)

E1 = E1 + C1 + CO1 + M1

(2)

E2 = E2 + C2 + CO2 + M2

(3)

M1 = T1 + P1 + V1

(4)

M2 = T2 + P2 + V2

(5)

E1 = E1 + C1 + CO1 + (T1 + P1 + V1)

(6)

E2 = E2 + C2 + CO2 + (T2 + P2 + V1)

(7)

NOTE: E = E1 = E2, C = C1 = C2, CO = CO1 = CO2


34

T = [(E + C + CO) + (T1 + P1 + V1)] [(E + C + CO) + (T2 + P2 + V2)]

(8)
= (E1 + C1 + CO1)(E2 + C2 + CO2)+(E2 + C2 + CO2) [(T1 + P1 +V1) + (T2 + P2 +V2)]
(E + C + CO)
((E
[(T
E + C + CO)
CO) {{11 + [(
T1 + P1 + V1) + ((T
T2 + P2 + V2)]}1

+ (T1 + P1 + V1) + (T2 + P2 + V2)


T1 T2 + T1 P2 + T1 V2
+ P1 T2 + P1 P2 + P1 V2
+ V1 T2 + V1 P2 + V1 V2
N
T1 T2 + T1 P2 + T1 V2
T = (E + C + CO) + + P1 T2 + P1 P2 + P1 V2 = U MCSi
i=1
+ V1 T2 + V1 P2 + V1 V2

(9)
35

DATA SOURCES

Generic Data Bases (those available are strongly safety-oriented;


e.g., NPRDS/EPIX, NRC, GADS, . . .)

Plant-Specific Data

New Tests

Subjective Judgment and Modeling

36

FAILURE PROBABILITY
OF A COMPONENT
Consider a Set of N Identical Components, Which are Tested
Repeatedly Until Failure

Mode
TMedian

Area = N
2

<T>

T f (T) dT : Mean
0

Number of Tests at Which Failure Occurs, T

37

UNCERTAINTY

FACTORS OF UNCERTAINTY
Randomness
Phenomenological Ignorance
Systematic Ignorance (complexity, Sensitivity)
Data Ignorance
IMPORTANT UNCERTAIN PHENOMENA
Common Cause Failures
Internal
External
Rare Events (e.g., Reactor Core Melt Progression)
TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY
Statistical (via Standard Deviation)
Sensitivity Analyses
Subjective Probability Elicitation
Research and Data Collection
Assignment of Bias

38

TYPES OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURES

AND THEIR ASPECTS

DEPENDENT

Description of Failure Cause Failure of an interfacing


system, action or component

STRUCTURAL*

A common material or design


flaw which simultaneously
affects all components
population

ENVIRONMENTAL

A change in the operational


environment which affects
all members of a component
population simultaneously

EXTERNAL*

An event originating outside


the system which affects all
members of a component
population simultaneously

Hardware Examples

Loss of electrical power


Loss of steam production in
steam-driven feedwater
system
A manufacturer provides
defective replacement parts
that are installed in all
components of a given
class

Faulty materials
Aging
Fatigue
Improperly cured materials
Manufacturing flaw

Dirty water in RCS with


regard to pump seal
High pressure
High temperature
Vibration

Weather: hurricanes,
tornado, ice, heat, low
cooling water flow
Earthquake (breaks pipe,
disables cooling system,
breaks containment)
Floodingloss of
electricity
Birds in engine of airplane

Human Examples

Following a mistaken
leader
An erroneous maintenance
procedure is repeated for
all components of a given
class

Incorrect training
Poor management
Poor motivation
Low pay

Common cause psf's


New disease
Hunger
Fear
Noise
Radiation in control room

Explosion
Toxic substance
Weather
Earthquake
Concern for families

Easy to Anticipate?:

High

Very Low

Medium

Medium

Medium

Very Low

Medium

Medium

Component failure

High, if system designed for


mitigation

Very Low, hard to design for


mitigation

Low

Low

Human error

High, if feedback provided to Very Low, the factors making


identify the error promptly
CCF likely also discourage
being prepared for correction

Low

Low

Component failure
Human error
Easy to Mitigate?:

* Usually there are no precursors

39

PRA MODEL OVERVIEW AND


SUBSIDIARY OBJECTIVES
CDF
10-4/ry

Level I

PLANT
MODEL

LERF
10-5/ry

QHOs

Level III

Level II

CONTAINMENT
MODEL

SITE/CONSEQUENCE
MODEL

Results

Results

Results

Accident
sequences
leading to
plant damage
states

Containment
failure/release
sequences

Public health
effects
PLANT MODE
At-power Operation
Shutdown / Transition
Evolutions

SCOPE
Internal Events
External Events

Uncertainties

40

RISK MODEL OVERVIEW


RISK MODEL
PLANT MODEL

CONTAINMENT
MODEL

SITE MODEL

SECTION 3

SECTION 4

(Not
(Not Included)
Included)

LEVEL I

LEVEL II

LEVEL III

RESULTS

RESULTS

RESULTS

Core Melt
Sequences
Section 3.4.1.1

Containment Failure/
Release Sequences
Section 3.4.1.2

Public Health
Effects
(Not Included)
41

INTEGRATED LEVEL 3 PRA


FRAMEWORK
FRONT-END ANALYSIS

BACK-END ANALYSIS
LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 3

INTERNAL EVENTS
CORE DAMAGE
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
EVENT TREES
FAULT TREES
FAILURE DATA
FREQUENCIES
PLANT
DAMAGE
STATE
FREQUEN
CIES

EXTERNAL EVENT
CORE DAMAGE
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS

FRONT-END
UNCERTAIN
TY ISSUES

RESOLUTION OF CORE VULNERABLE


SEQUENCES
PLANT DAMAGE STATE DEFINITION

ACCIDENT
PROGRESSION
EVENT TREE ACCIDENT
ANALYSIS
PROGRES
SION BIN
FREQUEN
CIES
CONTAINMENT
UNCERTAINTY
ISSUES

ACCIDENT
PROGRESSION
BIN DEFINITION

SOURCE
TERM
ANALYSIS

SOURCE
TERM
GROUPS
SOURCE
TERM
ISSUES

CONSE
QUENCE
RISK
ANALYSIS FREQUENCY
OF HEALTH &
ECONOMIC
CONSEQUENCES

SOURCE
TERM
GROUP
DEFINITION

42

QUANTIFIED ATWS SEQUENCE


EVENT TREE
ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM
SAFETY
VALVES
OPEN

LOSS OF
MAIN FEED RPS SCRAM

SAFETY
VALVES
CLOSE

MANUAL
MANUAL
EMERGENCY
ROD
BORON
INSERTION
ADDITION

ALTERNATE AUXILLARY OPERATOR


FEEDWATER
BORON
ESTABLISHES DECAY HEAT
(SECONDARY
REMOVAL
ADDITION
COOLING) FEED/BLEED

FAILURE
ASSUMED

9x10 -1

10
9
8

14 9x10

-4

12 1.4x10

18

-1

17

1.78

16 3x10-4
13 1x10 -1
22 9x10 -1
21 1x10

32 2x10-4

20 1.4x10-4
26
25

24

-1

30
29 1x10 -1 31
3x10-4

3 4.6x10-4

19 1.4x10-4

23

33 6x10-3

11 1.4x10-4

15

5
1

3x10

-4

27 1.4x10-4
-4

28 1.4x10

CONSE
QUENCE

PROB

OK
OK
CD

4x10 -13

CD

3x10 -11

OK
OK
CD
CD

3x10 -14
3x10 -14

OK
OK
CD

3x10 -11

CD

3x10 -13

OK
CD

2x10 -11

SMALL LOCA
(2x10-7 )
DUE TO SAFETY
VALVES NOT CLOSING

LARGE LOCA
(5x10-9 )
DUE TO SAFETY
VALVES NOT OPENING

43

PLANT MODEL OVERVIEW


(WITH IPE REPORT SECTION
REFERENCES)
EVENT SEQUENCE MODEL
INITIATING
EVENTS

SUPPOR T
SYSTEM
AVAILABILITY

SYSTEM/
OPERA TOR
RESPONSE

CORE
DAMANGE
SEQUENCES

SECTION 3.1.1

SECTION 3.1.4

SECTION 3.1.2

SECTION 3.4.1.1

HAZARD
ANALYSIS

SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS

OPERA TOR
ACTIONS

APPENDIX D

SECTION 3.2,
APP. E

SECTION 3.3.3

DATA
ANALYSIS
44

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY


Accidents Grouped by Initiating Event

TRANSIENTS
83%
LOSP
39%
Loss of
Su
pport
Support
Systems
25%

LOCA
8%

General
Transient
19%

ATWS
9%
45

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY


Accidents Grouped by Internal and External Initiating Event

INTERNAL EVENTS
55%

Fire
24%

Other
3%
Flood
5%
Seismic
13%

EXTERNAL EVENTS
45%

46

CONTAINMENT PERFORMANCE RESULTS

(Conditional Failure Probability Given Core Damage)

Late Containment
Failure **
65.4%
Early, Large Containment
0.2% Failure/Bypass *
14.2%
20.2%

* Equivalent to "unusually poor" containment


performance, as defined in GL 88-20

Early, Small Containment


Failure/Bypass

Intact Containment

**The containment failure probability of late containment


failure is believed to be overestimated relative to
containment intact. No credit has been taken for post-core
melt recovery actions.
47

CONTAINMENT FAILURE MODE CONTRIBUTIONS TO


EARLY, LARGE CONTAINMENT FAILURES/BYPASS
(Unusually Poor Containment Performance)

Containment
Isolation Failure
58.7%

1.3%

11.1%

Other
Direct Contaiment
Heating

26.8%
Induced Steam Generator
Tube Rupture
48

49

Courtesy of K. Kiper. Used with permission.

QUANTITATIVE SAFETY GOALS OF THE

US NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(August, 1986)

Early and latent cancer mortality


risks to an individual living near the
plant should not exceed 0.1 percent of
the background accident or cancer
mortality risk, approximately
-7
-7
5 x 10 /year for early death and
-6
2 x 10 /year for death from cancer.

The prompt fatality goal applies to an average individual living in the


region between the site boundary and 1 mile beyond this boundary.

The latent cancer fatality goal applies to an average individual living


in the region between the site boundary and 10 miles beyond this
boundary.

50

SOCIETAL RISKS

Annual Individual Occupational Risks


All industries
7x10-5
Coal Mining:
24x10-5
Fire Fighting:
40x10-5
Police:
32x10-5
1,900x105 (!)
US President:

Annual Public Risks


Total:
Heart Disease:
All cancers:
Motor vehicles:

870x10-5
271x10-5
200x10-5
15x10-5

From: Wilson & Crouch, Risk/Benefit Analysis, Harvard University Press, 2001.
51

SUBSIDIARY GOALS

The average core damage frequency (CDF) should be less than


10-4/ry (once every 10,000 reactor years)

The large early release frequency (LERF) should be less than


10-5/ry (once every 100,000 reactor years)

52

ACCEPTABLE VS.
TOLERABLE RISKS (UKHSE)
Increasing individual risks an
d societal concerns
and

UNACCEPTABLE REGION

Risk cannot be justified


save in extraordinary
circumstances

Control measures must be


introduced for risk in this
region to drive residual risk
towards the broadly
acceptable region

TOLERABLE REGION

BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION

Level of residual risk


regarded as insignificant -
further effort to reduce risk
not likely to be required

53

Adapted from "The tolerability of risk from nuclear power stations", Health Safety Executive.

PRA POLICY STATEMENT


(1995)

The use of PRA should be increased to the extent supported by


the state of the art and data and in a manner that complements the
defense-in-depth philosophy.

PRA should be used to reduce unnecessary conservatisms


associated with current regulatory requirements.

54

RISK-INFORMED DECISION MAKING


FOR LICENSING BASIS CHANGES
(RG 1.174, 1998)
Comply with
Regulations

Maintain
Defense-inDepth
Philosophy

Maintain
Safety
Margins

Integrated
Decision Making
Risk Decrease,
Neutral, or Small
Increase

Monitor
Performance
55

CDF

ACCEPTANCE GUIDELINES FOR


CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY
Region I
- No changes
Region II

Region I

- Small Changes
- Track Cumulative Impacts
Region III

10-5

- Very Small Changes


- More flexibility with respect to
Baseline
- Track Cumulative Impacts

Region II

10-6
Region III

10-5

10-4

CDF
56

RISK-INFORMED

FRAMEWORK

Traditional Deterministic

Approaches
Unquantified Probabilities

RiskInformed
Approach

Risk-Based
Approach
A
pproach
Quantified Probabilities

Design-Basis Accidents
Combination of
Scenario Based
Structuralist Defense in Depth
traditional and
Realistic
Can impose heavy regulatory burden
risk-based
Rationalist Defense in Depth
Incomplete
approaches
Incomplete
Quality is an issue

57

RISK IMPORTANCE

MEASURES

Risk = R(q1, q2, , qn),


where

ri = reliability of the ith plant component, action, or cut set


qi = unreliability of the ith component = 1 - ri
IFussell-Veselyi = the fraction of total risk involving failure of element, i

R(q i ) R mcsi1 + mcsi 2 + L + mcs i m


I FussellVeselyi =
=
R Nom
R(mcs1 + L + mcs n )

where
R(qi) = risk arising from event sequences involving failure of
component, action or cut set, i
RNom = nominal plant risk
m = number of minimal cut sets involving element (basic
event) i
n = total number of minimal cut sets
58

RISK IMPORTANCE
MEASURES
Risk Achievement Worth (RAWi) Maximum relative possible
increase in total risk due to failure of element, i; the element is
assumed always to fail.
R(q i = 1)
RAWi =
R Nom

where
RAWi = the risk achievement worth of the ith component, action
or cut set

59

COMPONENT RISK
IMPORTANCE
(Average of NUREG-1150 Surry and Sequoyah results)

Number of components

200

150

100

50

10-7

10-6

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

Increase in core damage frequency if component always failed


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from F. Gillespie, MIT Reactor Safety Course, 1993.

60

RISK IMPORTANCE
MEASURES
Risk Reduction Worth (RRWi) = Maximum possible relative
reduction in risk due to perfection of event i reliability; the
component is assumed always to succeed every time.
R Nom
RRWi =
,
R (q i = 0 )

where
RRWi = the relative risk decrease importance of the ith component,
action or cut set

61

CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY


PERCENT INCREASE PER SYSTEM1
CDF Breakdown by Doubling System Unavailability
(Including contributions from maintenance)
140%

100%

80%

60%

40%
20%

S
RP

60

0V
AC

IC
RC

V
11

5K

I
PC
H

N
TI
N

VE

/E
CI
LP

RH

R/

SF

G
ED

V
SR

12

4V

D
C

0%
ES

Risk Increase
[% CDF (Per Year)]

120%

System
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

62

USES OF RISK IMPORTANCE

MEASURES

Fussell-Vesely
Measure a Components or Systems Participation in Risks
Can Be Used to Identify Which Components or Systems
Contribute to Current Risks

Risk Achievement Worth

Identifies Which Components or Systems Must Be Kept


Reliable

Risk Reduction Worth


Identifies Which Components or Systems Are Most Valuable
for Improvement
Note
1
I FussellVeselyi = 1
RRWi
63

SYSTEM COMPONENT COST


AND RELIABILITY DATA
Component

Component Failure
Probability

Tank, T-1 or T-2

3.00E-5

Valve,
Valve, V-1 or V-2

1.20E-4

Pump, P-1 or P-2

9.00E-5

Electric Power, E

1.50E-4

Control System, C

3.00E-4

Cooling System, CO

1.00E-4

64

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANCE

RANKINGS

Component / or
System

Control
System, C

Electric Power
System, E

Valve, V-1

Fussell-Vesely

0.54

0.27

5x10 -5

Risk Reduction
Worth

2.18

1.37

1.00005

Risk Achievement
Worth

1819

1819

1.44

Importance
Measures

65

TIMELINE FOR NUCLEAR


WASTE DISPOSAL
1957

1982

National Academy
of Sciences (NAS)
supported deep
geologic disposal

1987

1992

Congress limited
characterization
to Yucca Mountain

Congress passes
Nuclear Waste
Policy Act

2002

2008

DOE scheduled to
begin receipt of
spent nuclear fuel
and high-level
radioactive waste

President recommended
and Congress approved
Yucca Mountain

Energy Policy
Act sets Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
standard process

2017

DOE scheduled
to submit License
Application

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

66

Pershing
County

Carson City
Douglas

*Eureka
County

*Churchill
County

Storey

Elko County

Humboldt County

*Lander
County

Washoe County

YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA

*White
Pine
County

*Nye County
Lyon
*Mineral
County

*Esmeralda
County
Yucca
Mountain

*Lincoln
County

*Inyo
County
California

*Clark
County

Nellis Air
Force Base
NV Test
Site

Las
Vegas

* Counties designated as affected units of local government


100 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County
Located on Western boundary of the Nevada Test Site,
a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

67

YUCCA MOUNTAIN
SUBSURFACE OVERVIEW
Surface

1,000
Feet
North Portal
South Portal

Repository
Level

Water
Table 1,000
Feet

Protective
Outer Barrier
Mechanical Support
Inner Barrier

Permanent Waste
Packages

Various Permanent
Waste Packages

Access Tunnel

Transporting
Containers by Rail
Remote Control
Locomotive

68

Image by U.S. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS

Volcanism

Nominal
Early defects

Seismic
69

Source: U.S. Department of Energy.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: PREDICTED


AVERAGE ANNUAL DOSE FOR
10,000 YEARS

Fig. F-17 in Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic


Repository at Yucca Mountain. U.S. Department of Energy, October 2007, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D.
70

YUCCA MOUNTAIN: PREDICTED


MEDIAN ANNUAL DOSE FOR
1,000,000 YEARS

Fig. F-17 in Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic


Repository at Yucca Mountain. U.S. Department of Energy, October 2007, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D.
71

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

National Energy Policy Discussion

22.811 Fall 2010

December 2, 2010
Page 1

Agenda

Policy overview
Carbon emission policies

Energy security

Economics
Politics
December 2, 2010
Page 2

Policy Overview- Current and


Historical

EISA
RPS
Cap & Trade
CAF
Low Carbon Fuel Standard

Stimulus Package
Package
DOE
ARPA-E
Loan Guarantee

EPA
CAA

December 2, 2010
Page 3

Agenda

Policy overview

Carbon Emission Policies

Energy security

Economics
Politics
December 2, 2010
Page 4

Carbon Emissions Policy

The riven Senate, with the decision today not to close out a modest package
of energy initiatives focused on oil drilling, is basically saying the following:
Dont look for the vital 21st-century energy quest, let alone a reality-based
approach to global warming, to begin within the borders of the United States.
- Andrew Revkin, New York Times (August 3, 2010)

December 2, 2010
Page 5

Carbon Emissions Policy

Do we need federal legislation to have national policy in the


US?

December 2, 2010
Page 6

Regional Efforts

GHG Reduction Targets

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative & TCI

MGGRA Observer

RGGI Observer & TCI

Western Climate Initiative

Midwest GHG Reduction Accord

Western Climate Initiative Observer

RGGI: Cap emissions at


current levels in 2009
Reduce emissions 10% by
2019.

WCI: 15% below 2005


levels by 2020

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

December 2, 2010
Page 7

State Efforts

Example Policy Measures

Renewable Portfolio Standards

Cap-and-Trade (CA)
Power Plant Efficiency
Standards
Building Efficiency Standards

CAF
standards
CAF
standards
Low Carbon Fuel Standards
Adaptation Policy
Sea Level Rise
Wild Fire
Drought

Plan Complete
Plan In-Progress
No Plan
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

December 2, 2010
Page 8

State Efforts

Example State Targets


California: 1990 levels by 2020, 80 percent below 1990 by 2050

Minnesota: 15% below 2005 levels by 2015, 30% below 2005 levels by

2025, 80% below 2005 levels by 2050

Florida: 1990 levels by 2025, 80% below 1990 levels by 2050

Illinois:1990 levels by 2020, 60% below 1990 levels by 2050

Massachusetts: 1990 levels by 2010, 10% below 1990 by 2020, 75-85%


below 1990 long-term

December 2, 2010

Page 9

Local Efforts

Signatories of the US Mayors Climate


Protection Agreement: 1044 as of
12/1/2010

Example Policy Measures


Green Building Standards
Energy Efficiency Retrofit
Public Transportation
Land U

Usse Pllaanni
nning
ng
Community Choice Aggregation

Financing

The United States Conference of Mayors. All rights reserved.


This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license.
For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.

Community Engagement and


Education
December 2, 2010
Page 10

Ecosystem

Please see ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, Center


for Climate Strategies, and U.S. Green Building Council.

December 2, 2010

Page 11

Who Needs DC!?

December 2, 2010

Page 12

Who Needs DC!?

QUESTION
Would a decentralized (regional, state, local) climate and

energy policy for the United States achieve what we need?

What strengths come with decentralization?

What shortcomings may there be?

December 2, 2010
Page 14

Agenda

Policy overview
Carbon emission policies

Energy security

Energy
security
Economics
Politics
December 2, 2010
Page 15

Energy Security

-Without fuel, they were nothing.


They built a house of straw.
straw.

December 2, 2010
Page 16

What is Energy Security?

The reliable supply of energy at an affordable price.


(IEA, 2001)
Energy security refers to a resilient energy system.
(NCIL, 2001)
Energy security has two key dimensions, reliability and
resilience. Reliability means users are able to access the energy
services they require, when they require them. Resilience is the
ability of the system to cope with shocks and change.
(New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development, 2006)
December 2, 2010
Page 17

Current Situation in the United


States
Electricity Generation
Coal: exports >> imports
Natural gas: ~8% imported
Uranium ore: Most from foreign sources (Australia,

Canada) but U.S. has significant assured resources.

Petroleum
~62% imported
In U.S., energy security is for most discussion
purposes equivalent to oil security.
December 2, 2010
Page 18

Why Should We Care?

Nine out of ten of the U.S. recessions since World War II were
preceded by a spike up in oil prices. (Palgrave, 2005)
1956- Suez Crisis
10.5% drop in world oil production; corresponding 2.5% drop in U.S.
real GDP (Hamilton, 2003)

December 2, 2010
Page 19

1973 Oil Crisis

Photos of cars lined up for gas in Brooklyn removed due to copyright restrictions.

Public domain image from U.S. National Archives.

December 2, 2010

Page 20

1979 Oil Crisis

Photo by Warren K. Leffler, via Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs


Division, U.S. News and World Report Magazine Collection: LC-U9-37734-16A.
Photo by Warren K. Leffler, via Library of Congress,
Prints & Photographs Division, U.S. News and World
Report Magazine Collection: LC-U9-29102-18.

December 2, 2010

Page 21

In 2009, 66% of imports from OPEC and Persian Gulf.

December 2, 2010
Page 22

Providing Energy Security in the U.S.

(1) Rely on market forces


(2) Foreign relations
Diplomacy
Military force

(3) Oil reserve


(4) Improve vehicle efficiency
Energy Independence through Substitution
(5) Increase domestic oil production (oil shale, etc.)

(6) Electric vehicles


(7) Biofuels
(8) Hydrogen economy
(9) Coal-to-liquids
(10) CNG vehicles
December 2, 2010
Page 23

Social Perspectives

Please see Mad Max, 1979 and Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, 1981.

December 2, 2010

Page 24

Agenda

Policy overview
Carbon emission policies

Energy
Energy security
security

Economics
Politics

December 2, 2010
Page 25

Total Energy RD&D Investments

VC: ~$8 bn yearly mostly clean tech


Federal Govt:
Recovery Act: $37 bn total. $33 bn clean tech
DOE: $27 bn total. $13 bn clean tech

C
Corporate
orporate R&D:
R&D: probably
probably in
in between
between VC and
and Fed
Fed

spending

December 2, 2010
Page 26

Comparable Federal Govt Budgets

December 2, 2010
Page 27

Levelized Cost of Electricity

Note 1: LCOE is an inappropriate measure of the cost of wind. LCOE erroneously values all kWh identically. Peak

electricity prices > off peak electricity prices. Wind production profile is stronger in off-peak. Thus, LCOE under-costs

wind.

Note 2: Wind integration costs are typically 10% of LCOE

December 2, 2010
Page 28

Levelized Cost of Electricity

December 2, 2010
Page 29

Agenda

Policy overview
Carbon emission policies

Energy
Energy security
security

Economics

Politics
December 2, 2010
Page 30

Short Term Thinking Dominates

Cartoons about climate change prediction and


summit removed due to copyright restrictions.

December 2, 2010

Page 31

Republicans Deny Warming

Pew Research Center 2010:

53% of Republicans say

Comic by Tom Toles removed due to copyright restrictions.

there is absolutely no
evidence of global
warming.
70% "Tea Party"
supporters said no
evidence
Pew Research Center 2007:

62% of Republicans said

there WAS evidence

Why the shift? Is this an accurate portrayal of Republicans?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7h08RDYA5E

7h08RDYA5E

December 2, 2010
Page 32

Democrats Fear Political Backlash

Pew Research Center 2010:

Cartoon about President Obama and climate


change removed due to copyright restrictions.

79% of Democrats believe


climate change is occurring,
relatively unchanged from
previous years
Even with 59 members in
the Senate, Bill could not be
passed without threat of
filibuster

December 2, 2010
Page 33

What Do We Do Now?

Courtesy of R. J. Matson. Used with permission.

December 2, 2010

Page 34

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Why so little progress on


international climate negotiations?
John Reilly

Cited reports and reprints at:


http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/

The State of Affairs


The Kyoto Framework of binding commitments with option of
international trading is for all practical purposes dead.
Proximate causeUS withdrawal
But Japan, Canada, Russia, Australia while ratifying are not
fully committedIf US had stayed in?
Developing country and Annex I/B designations became a
near impenetrable wall to coverage expansion.
Overriding issue.
Negotiating both about how much to do overall, and how to
share the burden.
Particularly with trading it is very complex to estimate
whether a country might gain or lose from a particular
commitment and it depends on what others commitment are
and whether they live up to them

The State of Affairs II


The success of international negotiations depend on the
negotiators ability to implement measures within their own
countries to achieve agreed reductions
Hard for negotiators to negotiate both internationally and with
domestic actors that need to pass domestic legislation.
Most successful international agreements ratify or codify what
countries are already doing.
Copenhagen finally accepted this fact, and included a list of what
countries were willing to commit (kind of) to do.
Nowhere near achieving the 2 degree target.
Most commitments highly conditional. E.g. US,
A step backward or forward?

State of Affairs III


Copenhagen finally, more or less, was an admission that the
Kyoto Framework was not workable.
Kyoto process was a path to ever more success in
negotiating worthless agreements.
What could have we have expected from Cancun?
We have is the patchwork of Copenhagen commitmentsthe issue is to
implement them.
No reason to expect an ever bigger or broader commitmenta few more
countries committing.
Success is just making progress in implementing, avoiding backsliding,
working out details, reaffirmingeven if we could do that there is not
much headline in it.
The collapse of cap and trade legislation in the US sucked any air there
might have been out of Cancun.
If US is not living up to commitment its not possible to pressure others that
are much smaller, poorer, etc. and whos pressing.
Can Europe carry the ball alone? Is Europe a success?

Some illustrative results on two key issues in


negotiations
Burden-sharing.
If the whole world participates its less costly to
achieve a given goal.
But if developed countries must pay the full cost
how much is the transfer?

REDD
Are forests as carbon sinks a lever and what are
the implications of creating incentives for
reforestation?

What about burden-sharing among regions?


G8-Global emissions should be 50% below
current/1990 by 2050
Suppose Developed cut by 70%Developing must cut
only 30%

International Negotiations under the Framework


Convention on Climate Change have differentiated
responsibilities:
Highly simplified
Developing countries need positive incentives to reduce
emissionsi.e. Developed countries need to pay for their
own emission abatement and abatement in Developing
Countries
See: Report 167. Sharing the Burden of GHG Reductions

2020 Consumption Loss


70-30 Shares

AS
I
CH
N
IN
D
ID
Z
AF
R
M
ES
LA
M
RO
W

M
EX

CA
N
JP
N
AN
Z
EU
R
EE
T
FS
U

-1.0

US
A

2020 Consumption Loss (%)

0.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
-8.0
-9.0
-10.0
70-30 shares

-18%

2020 Consumption Loss


Full Compensation
AF
R
M
ES
LA
M
RO
W

Z
ID

D
IN

M
E
X
A
SI
C
HN

-1.0

CA
N
JP
N
A
NZ
EU
R
EE
T
FS
U

U
SA

2020 Consumption Loss (%)

0.0
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0

If burden is allocated
to equalize % loss

-8.0
-9.0
-10.0

Equal % cost in 2050


Full comp

Net Financial Flows from Developed to Developing:


~$430 billion/year in 2020; $3.3 trillion/year in 2050

One issue to be addressed in CancunREDDReducing Emissions from Deforestation and


Forest Degradation
Using Land to Mitigate Climate Change: Hitting the Target, Recognizing the Tradeoffs
John Reilly1, Jerry Melillo2, Yongxia Cai1, David Kicklighter2, Angelo Gurgel1,3, Sergey Paltsev1,
Timothy Cronin1, Andrei Sokolov1, Adam Schlosser1This Paper

Goal: Consider a Climate Mitigation Policy that is


About as Stringent as Possible, keeping CO2
concentrations below 500 ppm
If we extend CO2 pricing to land does that bring us closer to the 2 degree C
target?
What is the role of biofuels vs. reforestation for carbon sequestration?
What are the impacts on agricultural prices?
9

1000

CO2 (ppmv)

Change in air temperature (oC)

Temperature and Atmospheric CO2


levels.

4
2
0
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

750

500

250
2000

Year

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

Year
Energy+Land

Energy only

No policy

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Global energy use top and land use bottom, with


energy only policy left, and energy+land policy right

Food, crop, livestock, and forestry


price impacts
2.2
Crop Price Index

1.8
1.4
1.0

Livestock Price Index

0.6
2000

2020

2040
2060
Year

2080

4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
2000

2020

2040 2060
Year

2080

Energy+Land

2100

1.8
1.4
1.0
0.6
2000

2100

Forestry Price Index

Food Price Index

2.2

2020

2040

2060
Year

2080

2100

4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5
0.5
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year

Energy only

No policy

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Non-governmental Action?
Most companies want to look like they are
environmentally responsible, and many even mean it.
In a competitive economy, its hard to sell green that
costs morecompanies are required to operate in
shareholders interests.
Threat of climate legislation makes fossil intensive
investments risky and so in shareholders interests to
think hard and maybe avoid.
But even that depends on credible threat of legislation

Summary

Its not just the cost of the policy its the broader implications on
distribution among countries and among different types of
households within countries.
Do you trust that all parties hold to the dealRussian hot air
US withdrawal from Kyoto.
Energy price and food impactseven if countries are
compensated will households within the country be compensated.
Its not just abatement cost but benefits or costs imposed through
macroeconomic relationshipsreduced demand for fuels
undermines a value of oil resources in Middle East, Canada,
Russia, etc.
Very different perceptions of equity and responsibility
Developed countriespast is past, lets fix the problem from here on
Developing countriesyou became rich by using fuels and forests without
consideration of GHG implications so that is our right too.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Prof. Michael W. Golay


Nuclear Engineering Dept.

HYDROPOWER

HYDRO POWER
A CASE STUDY

Some facts and figures


Large-scale versus small scale
High head versus lowhead
Energy conversion technology

Environmental and social impacts


Economic issues

FOUR TYPES OF
HYDROPOWER SYSTEMS
1. Impoundment Involving Dams: e.g., Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee
2. Diversion or Run-of-River Systems: e.g., Niagara Falls
3. Pumped Storage


Two way flow

Pumped up to a storage reservoir and returned to lower


elevation for power generation

4. Tidal: e.g., la Rance

BOSTON BACK BAY

Photo by Peter Stevens on Flickr.


4

BC BEAVER DAM

HYDRO-QUBEC
PRODUCTION

97% renewable energy


57 hydroelectric generating
stations (35,647 MW)
26 reservoirs
(capacity of 175 TWh / year)

1 nuclear power plant


Annual investment: $2 billion

CANIAPISCAU RESERVOIR

Aerial photo of Caniapiscau Reservoir removed due to copyright restrictions.

Caniapiscau Reservoir is a man-made lake, created as part of


the La Grande Complex (James Bay) Hydro-electric Project.
http://www.ilec.or.jp/database/nam/nam-35.html
7

THREE GORGES DAM

Image by Jesse Allen, Earth Observatory, using ASTER data made


available by NASA/GSFC/MITI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER
Science Team. Via NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.

BONNEVILLE DAM

DORDOGNE DAM

10

ITAIPU DAM

11

Photo by Herr stahlhoefer on Wikimedia Commons.

ITAIPU DAM

12

ITAIPU DAM

13

ASWAN DAM

Photos by Image Science & Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson


Space Center and NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.

14

COMMON FEATURES OF CONVENTIONAL


HYDROPOWER INSTALLATIONS
Typical Hydroelectric Dam
Generators - Rotated by the
turbines to generate electricity
Dam - Stores water
Transmission lines - Conduct
electricity, ultimately to homes
and businesses

Penstock - Carries
Cross section of conventional
water to the turbines
hydropower facility that uses
an impoundment dam

Turbines - Turned by
the force of the water
on their blades

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Tennessee Valley Authority.

15

CONVENTIONAL HIGH HEAD RUN-OF-RIVER


HYDROPOWER, e.g., NIAGARA FALLS
Top View
Original river bed
Spillway

Penstock

Reservoir

Dam
Surge tank

Intake structure

Power house

Penstock
Damming section

Supply section

Tailrace section

Section of river exploitation

Cross-Section
The characteristic components of a river-diversion hydroelectric plant.
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

16

HYDRO POWER SOME


FACTS AND FIGURES

Current World Hydropower Production (2006)




~ 3000 TWh -- about 20% of the worlds electricity and


about 88% of electricity from renewable sources

~ 777 GWe of capacity in 150 countries

US capacity 100,451 MWe (2009)




78,951 MWe conventional hydro

21,500 MWe pumped storage

About 8% of US electricity equivalent to 2.9 quads

Approximately 70% of US renewable energy

Average Capacity/Availability Factor 42% (~6% of total


capacity)
17

COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC GENERATION


CAPACITY IN NORTH AMERICA (2006)
United States
10%

Canada

Qubec
0.9%

9%

11%

2%

1.4%

4%

1.7%

0.9%

31%

22%

42%

59%

1.1%
6%
92%

6%

Natural gas

Oil

Coal

Other

Nuclear

Hydroelectricity

Installed capacity

1,076,000 MW

124,000 MW

40,000 MW

Electricity generation

4,064 TWh

592 TWh

180 TWh

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: Statistics Canada.

18

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OPTIONS IN QUBEC


AND THE REST OF NORTH AMERICA

Courtesy of Hydro-Qubec. Used with permission.


19

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

Courtesy of Hydro-Qubec. Used with permission.


20

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
2005-2020

Map of projected Hydro-Quebec hydroelectric construction removed due to


copyright restrictions. Please see this map of current Hydro-Quebec construction instead.

HYDRO POWER SOME FACTS


AND FIGURES, continued

Big Range in Capacity and Size


 Power capacity 1 kWe to 14500 MWe
 Hydraulic head < 1 m to 1500 m (from low-head to high-head)
(S. Fiorano, Italy)
 Largest earth dam height 300 m (Tajikistan)
 Largest reinforced concrete dam height 305 m (China)
 Reservoir volume 180 km3 (Zimbabwe)
 Reservoir area 8,482 km2 (Lake Volta, Ghana)
Theoretical Potential, Technically Exploitable
 15000 TWh/yr or about 4,000,000 MWe of capacity

22

REPRESENTATIVE MEGA-SCALE
HYDROPOWER PROJECTS
Name

Location

Type

Capacity, MWe

Reservoir size

Grand Coulee

Columbia River, Lake


Roosevelt, Washington

Impoundment dam, 550 ft


(170m) high

6809

Niagara Falls

Niagara River. New York

Diversion, run of river

2400

Hoover Dam

Colorado River, Lake


Mead, Nevada

Impoundment dam, 726 ft


(223m) high

2080

Norris Dam TVA

Clinch River, Norris Lake,


Tennessee

Impoundment dam, 265 ft


(81m) high

131.4

Glen Canyon

Colorado River, Lake


Powell, Arizona

Impoundment dam, 710 ft


(261m) high

1296

James Bay Project


La Grande 1, 2A, 3, 4
Robert-Bourassa
Laforge 1, 2
Brisay
Eastmain 1, 1A

La Grande River Watershed


and Laforge River, Quebcc,
Canada

Impoundment and run-ofriver, multiple dams

Itaipu

Parana River, Itaipu Lake,


Paraguay/Brazil

Impoundment dam, 643 ft


(196 m) high

14,000

23.5 x 1012 acre ft.


29 million km3

Three Gorges

Yangze River, Three


Gorges Lake China

Impoundment dam, 607 ft


(185 m) high

18,200

31.8 million acre ft.


39.3 km3

Guri

Caroni River, Venezuela

10,235

Krasnoyarsk

Yenisey River, Krasnoyarsk


Lake, Russia

Impoundment dam, 531 ft


(162 m) high
Impoundment dam, 407 ft
(124 m) high

109.4 million acre ft.


135 km3
59.4 million acre ft.
73.3 km3

8671
+5616
+1197
+ 469
+ 768

6,000

9.6 million acre ft.


11.9 km3
nil
28.5 million acre ft.
35.2 km3

24.3 million acre ft.


30 km3
>100 Quabbins!!

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Table 12.1 in Tester, Jefferson W., et al.
Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options. MIT Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780262201537.

23

HYDROPOWER IS STRATEGICALLY
IMPORTANT WORLDWIDE (2008)

North America
661,991 GWh/yr
Central and South America
665,316 GWh/yr
Africa
99,449 GWh/yr
Asia and Oceania
878,332 GWh/yr

Europe
547,732 GWh/yr
Eurasia
222,254 GWh/yr
Middle East
25,064 GWh/yr

1,560 North American Plants (5,000 Units)


13,000 International Plants (42,000 Units)
World Total = 3,100,139 GWh/yr
World Total = $50,000,000,000/yr
24

TEN OF THE LARGEST


HYDROELECTRIC PRODUCERS (2009)
Country

Installed
Capacity % of total
Annual hydroelectric
production (TWh) capacity (GW) factor
capacity

China

585.2

196.79

0.37

22.25

Canada

369.5

88.974

0.59

61.12

Brazil

363.8

69.080

0.56

85.56

United States

250.6

79.511

0.42

5.74

Russia

167.0

45.000

0.42

17.64

Norway

140.5

27.528

0.49

98.25

India

115.6

33.600

0.43

15.80

Venezuela

86.8

Japan

69.2

27.229

0.37

7.21

Sweden

65.5

16.209

0.46

44.34

67.17

25

FUTURE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECTS OVER 5,000 MW
Name
Red Sea Dam

Capacity (MW)
50,000

Country
Djibouti

Construction Completion
Proposed

Yemen
Grand Inga Dam

39,000

Congo DR 2014

2025

Three Gorges Dam 22,500

China

1994

2011

Baihetan Dam

13,050

China

2009

2015

Belo Monte Dam

11,233

Brazil

Proposed

Wudongde Dam

7,500

China

2009

2015

26

Table 12.4 Potential for hydropower development in selected countries


based on technical potential and economic potential in todays energy
markets

Country

Norway

Hydro as % of
total electricity

Ratio of theoretical
potential to actual

Ratio of economic
potential to actual

100

5.77

1.8

5.4

3.0

1.1

Brazil

91.7

Switzerland

80

Canada

63

3.81

1.54

India

25

4.2

3.0

France

20

1.15

1.0

China

17

10.1

6.6

Indonesia

14

31.3

3.13

United States

10

1.82

World total

19

18.34

1.3
>2.78

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Table 12.4 in Tester, Jefferson W., et al.
Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among Options. MIT Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780262201537.

27

HYDROPOWER CAPACITY
ESTIMATES
Continent
Africa
North America
South America
Asia
Europe
Middle East
Oceania

Capacity in 2005
GWe
TWh/yr
21.6
83.7
164.1
675.6
123.7
596.5
222.7
718.2
225.2
705.5
7.2
16.9
13.5
40.4

Total World

778.0

2,836.8

Maximum
Theoretical
Potential
TWh/yr
3,884
8,054
7,121
16,285
4,945
418
495
41,202

Technically Economically
Possible
Possible
TWh/yr
TWh/yr
1,852
> 200
3,012
> 1,500
3,036
> 2,000
5,523
> 2,500
2,714
> 1,000
168
> 100
189
> 100
16,494

Source: World Energy Council

28

BASIC OPERATING EQUATIONS


FOR HYDROPOWER
Total power from hydropower including both
static (PE) and dynamic (KE) contribution

Power = (total hydrualic head ) (volumetric flowrate) (efficiency )


2
Power = ( gZ + 1/ 2 (v ) ) Q

For impoundment hydro systems


with only static hydraulic head (PE) recovered
and no recovery of flowing head (KE)

Power = 9.81103 ZQ in watts = 9.81103 ZQ in MWe


29

TURBINE TYPES

Impulse Turbine
 Pelton
 Turgo Wheel
 Cross-Flow
Reaction Turbine
 Propeller
 Bulb
 Straflo
 Tube
 Kaplan
 Francis
 Kinetic

Images of turbines removed due to copyright restrictions.


Please see "Types of Hydropower Turbines."
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.
Also see Turgo, Cross-Flow, Straflo, and Kinetic turbines.

30

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/hydro_turbine_types.html

HYDROPOWER IS STRATEGICALLY
IMPORTANT WORLDWIDE (2008)

North America
661,991 GWh/yr
Central and South America
665,316 GWh/yr
Africa
99,449 GWh/yr
Asia and Oceania
878,332 GWh/yr

Europe
547,732 GWh/yr
Eurasia
222,254 GWh/yr
Middle East
25,064 GWh/yr

1,560 North American Plants (5,000 Units)


13,000 International Plants (42,000 Units)
World Total = 3,100,139 GWh/yr
World Total = $50,000,000,000/yr
24

FRANCIS AND KAPLAN


TURBINES

Franke, Gary F,. et al. "Development of Environmentally Advanced Hydropower Turbine


System Design Concepts." U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory (August 1997): INEEL/EXT-97-00639. http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/563213

32

HYDRAULIC TURBINES: DOMAINS OF HEAD AND


SCALE IN THE ENGINEERING PRACTICE OF
PELTON, FRANCIS AND KAPLAN TURBINES
2,000

S Fiorano (1967)

1,000

Lang-Sima (1975)

Pelton

Minimum net Head


meters

Pradella (1964)

Tonstad (1968)
New Colgate (1965)
Churchill Falls
(1972)

Nacazaki (1957)

Francis

100

St-Sima (1975)

Itaipu (1978)
Grand Coulee IV (1973)

St Martin (1954)

Vilovi (1963)

Kanayama (1966)

Ilma Soltiera (1968)


Ligga III (1981)
Jerdapiron Gate (1969)
Little Goose (1974)

Kesikkopru (1961)

Kaplan

10
5
10

Wallssee (1965)
Isola Serafini (1957)

100

1,000

Turbine Power
megawatts
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

33

MAJOR ATTRIBUTES OF
HYDROPOWER
Positive

Negative

Emissions-free, with virtually no CO2, NOx,


SOx, hydrocarbons, or particulates

Frequently involves impoundment of large


amounts of water with loss of habitat due to
land inundation

Renewable resource with high conversion


efficiency to electricity (80%)

Variable output - dependent on rainfall and


snowfall

Dispatchable with storage capability

Impacts on river flows and aquatic ecology,


including fish migration and oxygen depletion

Usable for base load, peaking, and pumped


storage applications

Social impacts of displacing indigenous people

Scalable from 10 kWe to 10,000 MWe

Health impact in developing countries

Low operating and maintenance cost

High initial capital costs

Long lifetime - 50 years typical

Long lead time in construction in mega-sized projects


Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

34

HYDRO POWER ECONOMIC


ISSUES

Very capital intensive include fuel costs


Large projects > 100 MWe have long lead times (4-6 yr)
Long lifetimes and low operating and maintenance costs
Large seasonal variation [factors of 2 to 10 in flow common]
Costs very sensitive to natural terrain and climate e.g., compare
Switzerlands mountainous relief and high rainfall to the flatter,
dryer Midwestern regions of the US

Installed costs range from about $750/kW to $2000/kW for


10-1000 MWe plants

With intrinsic output variability need to inflate costs- typically


range from $1500 to 6000 per reliable kilowatt

35

HYDRO POWER ENVIRONMENTAL


AND SOCIAL ISSUES

Land Use Inundation and Displacement of People


Impacts on Natural Hydrology


Infiltration

Increase evaporative losses

Altering river flows and natural flooding cycles

Sedimentation/silting

Water Chemistry Changes




Mercury, nitrates, oxygen

Bacterial and viral infections (maleria, schitosomiasis,


cholera,)

36

EFFECTS OF
HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES

Biological Effects


Change in aquatic ecosystem species change

Damage to organisms passing through turbine

Oxygen depletion downstream of dams

Blockage of migration/breeding paths

Parasite growth

37

EFFECTS OF HYDROELECTRIC
FACILITIES, cont

Physical Effects


Interruption of flooding cycles (silt, flood, transport)

Increased temperature

Increased evaporation

Increased leakage

Silting

Earthquakes

Dam failures and overtopping

38

SYMMARY HYDROPOWER

Is Simple, Ancient Technology


Is the Most Important Industrial-Scale Renewable Energy
Technology
Is Largely Opposed by Green Lobbies
 Opposition to new dams
 Decommissioning of existing dams
Disruptive Ecological and Hydraulically
Catastrophic Failures are Possible

39

ARCHIVAL WEB SITES ON


HYDROPOWER
http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/hydropower.html
http://www.worldenergy.org/
http://hydropower.inel.gov/
http://hydro.org/why-hydro/
http://www.energy.ca.gov/hydroelectric/index.html
http://www.unep.org/dams/WCD/
http://www.ussdams.org

40

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Sustainable Energy
Options for Africa

Robert Stoner
Associate Director
MIT Energy Initiative

Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space, Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.

Rwinkwavu, Rwanda

Unique Africa

Un-Electrified Population, Millions

809

21
5
698

561
589
34

13

2009

2030

By 2030 roughly 1.3 billion people will remain un-electrified. With Africa's un-electrified projected to grow
to 700 million, gains made in other regions will be largely negated.
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Dalberg Associates, IEA data.

Four Typical Countries

Population (million)
Pop. Growth Rate (%)
Urban Pop. (%)
Urban Pop. Growth Rate
GDP (Exchange Rate $Billion)
GDP per capita ($)
Electricity per capita (kWh)
Urban Growth per year (millions)
Rural Growth per year (millions)
% Change to Urban Annually

South
Africa
49.1
0.05%
61%
1.40%
$287.2
$5,849
4,894

Egypt
80.5
2.00%
43%
1.80%
$188.0
$2,335
1,471

Nigeria
152
2.00%
48%
3.80%
$173.0
$1,138
126.38

Kenya
40
2.60%
22%
4.00%
$32.7
$818
122

0.42
0.44
1.76%

0.62
0.99
0.45%

2.8
0.27
1.65%

0.35
0.69
0.84%

(Source: CIA Factbook)

The lack of rural electrification will be with us for a long time.

Nigeria

Electricity Generation by Fuel in Nigeria

30,000

25,000

Hydro - A real option


GWh

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

Oil

1987

1990

Gas

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

Hydro

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: IEA.

Energy in OPCs

Total Population,
2006 (million)

Number of people
without electricity
access (million)

(%)

Number of people
relying on fuelwood
and charcoal for
cooking (million)

Angola

16.6

14.6

88

15.7

95

Cameroon

18.2

14.2

78

14.2

78

Chad

10.5

10.1

97

10.2

97

3.7

2.9

78

2.9

80

18.9

11.6

61

14.7

78

Equatorial Guinea

0.5

0.4

73

0.3

59

Gabon

1.3

0.9

70

0.4

33

21

18.6

89

16.9

80

144.7

76.6

53

93.8

65

37.7

26.9

71

735.2

93

273.1

176.9

65

204

75

Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
^

Mozambique
Nigeria
Sudan
Total

(%)

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: IEA World Energy Outlook 2008.

Gas Flaring in Nigeria

2nd next to Russia


25% of gross production

Graph from Country Analysis Brief: Nigeria.


U.S. Energy Information Administration, July 2010.

Photo of gas flares in Nigeria removed


due to copyright restrictions.

How much e is that?


532 bcf 156B kWh
@50% 80B kWhe
(Consumption 20B kWhe)
.

Gas an option for Nigeria

Text removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Layne, Rachel. "GE Gas Turbines
to be Added to Nigerian Omotosho Plant." Bloomberg L. P., November 22, 2010.

Create Options for Neighbors

Map of Africa showing locations of existing, planned, or under construction oil and
pipelines and other energy infrastructure has been removed due to copyright restrictions.
Please see Fig. 15.5 in World Energy Outlook 2008. OECD/IEA, 2008.

Source: IEA World


Energy Outlook 2008
Compiled from PFC
Energy and Petroleum
Economist.

LPG

Liquified Petroleum Gas

12% of households
$50-$100 system cost
Competes with wood.

Nigerian Deforestation

Forest cover loss >40%


(since 1990).

Loss is >3.3% per year.


75% of timber is imports.

Graph from Country Analysis Brief: Nigeria. U.S. Energy Information Administration,
July 2010.
.

Powering Nigeria a little


150M people
5 people/HH
50% without electricity
so we need 15M connections
Capital for T&D @ $1,000/HH is $15B
Capital for Generation @ 1kWh/HH/day

15M kWh/day + 5M kWh/day (losses)

= 20M kWh/day

Assume 4 hours per day level load5M kW or 5 GW.

So, buy 10GW nameplate capacity @ $1,000/kw (gas) for $10B.

Total capital is $15B+$10B=$25B. (equal to Federal Budget)

African Power Pools

East African
Power Pool (EAPP)

West African
Power Pool (WAPP)
Central African
Power Pool (CAPP)

Southern African
Power Pool (SAPP)

Existing power lines


Proposed power pool projects
Proposed NEPAD projects

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from World


Energy Outlook 2008. Source: NEPAD data.

Economies of scale
Greater reliability
Larger loads
Options for resource poor

The Solar Option

Image by NASA Atmospheric Science Data Center, Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy.

Source: SWERA

Global Horizontal Incidence

Please see "Africa Global Horizontal Solar Radiation - Annual." NREL, November 2005.

Solar Home Systems (SHS)

Component-wise
$500-$1000
Images removed due to copyright restrictions.

System in a Box
$200-$1500

Solar Lanterns

Image remove due to copyright restrictions. Please see "Solar


Lanterns Test: Shades of Light." GTZ, May 2009.

Egypt and North Africa

Photo by Liam Gumley, University of Wisconsin - CIMMS,


NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.

Direct Normal Incidence

Please see "Africa Direct Normal Solar Radiation - Annual." NREL, November 2005.

Concentrated Solar

$3-5/kW

Photo by ldrose on Flickr.

Trough
Tower

Photo by afloresm on Flickr.

Desertec

Europe+North Africa
Electricity Demand
6,570 TWh/year
(225kmx225km)

Europe+North Africa
Energy Demand
46,000 TWh/year
(600kmx600km)

Courtesy of Dii GmbH. Used with permission.

Vision: Coastal CSP Plants provide electric power to Europe and North Africa

+ Desalination. (approx. 600kmx600km completely filled.)

(Source: David MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air.)

Desertec

e.g. Tunisia:
GDP Impact @ $0.05/kWh
$17.5B/year in sales to europe.
(BUT
(B
UT Levelized Cost = $0.20/kWh
$0.20/kWh !!)
!!)

Whateverwhat does it cost?


To generate 350,000 GWh/yr
Required CSP Capacity 100GW
Cost of 100GW CSP @ $5,000/kW
$500B
*World Energy Consumption 132,000 TWh/yr

The Hydro Option

Electricity Generation by Fuel in Kenya


8,000
7,000
6,000

GWh

5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

Oil

Geothermal/solar/wind

Hydro

Comb. renew. & waste

2002

2005

2008

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: IEA.

Deforestation

Please see maps in Fig. 1 and Site 9: Eldama Ravine Constituency, Koibatak District
in Akotsi, Erick F. N., Michael Gachanja, and Jacob K. Ndirangu. "Changes in Forest
Cover in Kenya's Five 'Water Towers,' 2003-2005." DRSRS/KFWG, November 2006.

The Geothermal Option

Rift Valley
Potential 4-8GW
Africa Rift Valley Geothermal
Development Facility (ARGeo)
$18M
Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Eritrea,
Uganda, Tanzania

Olkaria Complex (I-IV)


Photo of the geothermal power plant at
175MWe installed (200MW nationally)
Olkaria removed due to copyright restrictions.
800MWe potential (2-4GW nationally)
Image by NASA/JPL/NIMA.
Objective is 1200MW by 2015
280MW in Olkaria I and IV just started (2013)
$1.314B (i.e., $4,700/kW) all in.

Nuclear Kenya

Photo of a nuclear power plant near the ocean has been removed due to copyright restrictions.

African Power Pools - Again

East African
Power Pool (EAPP)

West African
Power Pool (WAPP)
Central African
Power Pool (CAPP)

Southern African
Power Pool (SAPP)

Existing power lines


Proposed power pool projects
Proposed NEPAD projects

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from World


Energy Outlook 2008. Source: NEPAD data.

South Africa

Image by Jacques Descloitres, MODIS Land Group,


NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.

Post Apartheid Electrification

Photo of South Africa showing power lines overhead in filthy urban area has been removed due to copyright restrictions.

South African Innovations

Innovations:
Elimination of 3-phase standard approach.
Adoption
Adoption of SWER and other cost reduction strategies.
strategies.
Readiboards.
Prepaid meters.
Blanket electrification.
Revised standards for small consumers enabled use of
cheaper cabling.

85% and Counting

Map removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 2 in "Community Electricity
in Rural South Africa: Renewable Mini-Grid Assessment." ScottishPower/G7, 2004.

Electrification Impact

light
cooking

paraffin
Courtesy of Elsevier, Inc., http://www.sciencedirect.com. Used with permission.

Adoption for cooking significantly lags lighting


displacing paraffin and wood.

Coal Dependence

Electricity Generation by Fuel in South Africa


300,000

250,000

GWh

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0
1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

Coal/peat

1990

1993

Nuclear

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

Hydro

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: IEA.

Medupi Clean Coal!

$4.5B
880 ha
6x800MW
April 2010.

Photography by Anthony Allen, www.aerialphoto.co.za. Used with permission.

South Africas REFIT

Parameter

Units

Wind

Small Hydro

Landfill Gas
Methane

Concentrated
Solar Plant (CSP),
Parabolic Trough with
Storage (6 hrs per day)

Capital cost: engineering


procurement & construction
$/kW
(EPC)

2000

2600

2400

4700

Land cost

5%

2%

2%

2%

Allowance for funds under


construction (AFUC)

4.4%

10.6%

4.4%

4.4%

Tx/Dx integration cost

3%

3%

3%

3%

Storage (CSP)
Total investment cost

$/kW

Fixed O&M

8%

3020

2631

5545

2009$/kW/Yr 24

39

116

66

Variable O&M

2009$/kWh

Economic life

Years

20

20

20

20

12%

12%

12%

12%

Renewable

Renewable

Renewable

Renewable

1.5

WACC
Plant lead time

Years

Fuel type
Fuel cost

$/10^6BTU

Fuel cost

$/kWh

Heat rate

BTU/kWh

2255

0.00106

13500

Assumed load factor

27%

50%

80%

40%

Levelised cost of electricity


$/kWh
production

0.1247

0.0940

0.0896

0.2092

10

10

10

10

1.247

0.940

0.896

2.092

Exchange rate R/$

ZAR/$

Levelised cost of electricity


R/kWh
production

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from National Energy Regulator of South


Africa. Table shows the Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff (REFIT) schedule.

Representative 2010 Residential Retail Tariff: < $0.09/kWh

Upington Solar Park

Please see "Africa Direct Normal Solar Radiation - Annual." NREL, November 2005.

Take Aways

Africa is a big place the options are as varied as


the terrain.
Energy and the sustainability of the population are
inseparable.
The industrialization track (mainly urban), and quality
of life track (mainly rural) must both be pursued.
Technical innovation will be crucial to meet scale and
cost requirements of the market.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Rev. 12/15/10

2.650J/10.291/22.81J

INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY


Fall 2010

OPEN BOOK

FINAL EXAM

3 HOURS

NOTE: The data of Table A may be useful for solving any of the various problems below.
PROBLEM #1
A solar reflector array and power tower system produces sodium at a temperature of 400C.
The sodium can be stored in an insulated reservoir that will maintain the fluid temperature
375C over a 24-hour interval. Considering the factors listed in Table A, what are the answers
to the following questions?
Table A

A. (10 points) What is the minimal area of a solar reflector array needed to provide an
electricity output that of a base-loaded thermal power plant having a capacity of
1000 MWe?
B. (10 points) What minimal mass of sodium must be stored in the insulated reservoir in order
to permit the plants output power to be 1000 MWe for one day?
C. (5 points) What are five important potential environmental effects of building and
operating the power plant?

1 of 3

Sustainable Energy
Final Exam
Page 2

PROBLEM #2
A. (15 points) An important hydroelectric plant has a head of 100 m and water volumetric
flowrate of 10,000 m3/s. What is the maximum power that the plant can produce?
B. (10 points) The reservoir behind the dam has a surface area of 100 (km)2 and a depth of
10 m. If the water is in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings at a temperature
of 20C, what is the fractional rate of evaporative loss from the reservoir? In answering this
question, consider only the energetics of the relevant phase changes. (Assume that the mean
thermal insolation rate is 100 w/m2.)
PROBLEM #3
An MIT student lives at 484 Beacon St., Boston (between Hereford St. and Massachusetts Ave.).
He wishes to use a 10-speed bicycle to reach a final examination at MIT scheduled for May
2011. Consider the following events that could contribute to his failure to reach the examination
site on time:
Table B Events Affecting the Bicycle Journey
Starting the journey too late
Closure of the Massachusetts Avenue bridge
Mechanical failure of the bicycle
Mechanical failure of the bicycle rider
Collision between the bicycle and a motorized vehicle
Unavailability of a lockable bike rack at MIT
A. (8 points) Construct an event tree for the event sequence describing success or failure to
complete the journey on-time.
B. (9 points) Construct a fault tree for the top event, Mechanical failure of the bicycle.
C. (4 points) Which of the events of Table B are mutually dependent? Why?
D. (4 points) Which of the events of Table B have occurrence probabilities that will vary
seasonally? Why?

Sustainable Energy
Final Exam
Page 3

PROBLEM #4
A. (10 points) Natural gas is described as having a carbon intensity less than that of coal.
What is the ratio of CO2 emissions from complete combustion of the two fuels?
B. (10 points) By what factor would use of 10% methanol as a constituent of gasohol change
the CO2 emissions for an automobile journey, compared to the case of fueling the journey
solely using gasoline?
C. (5 points) How is your answer changed when you consider CO2 emissions that occur in
production of the required methanol? What are the activities causing such emissions?

EXTRA CREDIT (7 points)


At the end of 2008 it was broadly expected that federal legislation to establish a tax on CO2
emissions would be considered by the Congress during the term of the new Congress, starting in
2009. This has not happened. Why?

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Sustainable Energy Take-Home Exam 1

This is a take-home quiz, due Friday 10/29 at 5pm. You may use any class notes, texts, or other
reliable sources that you wish, but be sure to cite any sources you use. State all assumptions
made.
Question 1 (50 Points):
A 3 MWe wind turbine can be placed at either Site A or B, which have respective probability
density functions for the wind velocity at the site (assume that the power output of the turbine
varies as the cube of the velocity) as shown in Fig 1.

The land for Site A costs $1.0 million and that at Site B costs $2.0 million. The turbine capital
cost is $2 million. O&M costs for a turbine is $100,000/yr. Electricity from a wind turbine can
be sold to the grid for $60/MWhre. The turbine lifetime is 20 years. The discount rate is 0.04
annually. Inflation and taxes may be ignored. Which site offers the expectation of a better
investment?

Extra Credit (up to 5 Points): Once the more attractive site is identified what additional factors
should a potential investor take into account prior to deciding whether to fund the wind
turbine?

Question 2 (50 Points):


An ocean thermal gradient electric generating system is proposed for siting in Hawaii. This
system would operate a heat engine driven by heat flow from warm ocean water (cooled from
27 C to 25 C in the heating heat exchanger of the system), and cooled by heat flow to cold
ocean water (which is heated from 3 C to 5 C in the cooling heat exchanger of the system).
The ocean water used in the different parts of the heat engine is obtained from different
depths of the surrounding sea. Using this heat engine electricity can be produced at 90% of the
corresponding Carnot efficiency of the heat engine.

a. (10 points) What is the value of the Carnot efficiency of the heat engine? Explain the
basis for selecting the parameter values used in calculating this value.
b. (15 points) Should the cold ocean water flow through the engine at a rate of 100 million
kg/min what is the electric power output of the engine?
c. (15 points) What is the corresponding flow rate of warm ocean water?
d. (10 points) Friction losses arising in pumping seawater through the engine account for
0.33 of the engines irreversibilities. Over time we can expect such friction losses to
double, due to befouling in the flow circuits. What would be the resulting value of the
heat engines efficiency?

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Sustainable Energy Take-Home Exam 1

Solutions

Question 1 (50 Points):


A 3 MWe wind turbine can be placed at either Site A or B, which have respective probability
density functions for the wind velocity at the site (assume that the power output of the turbine
varies as the cube of the velocity) as shown in Fig 1.

The land for Site A costs $1.0 million and that at Site B costs $2.0 million. The turbine capital
cost is $2 million. O&M costs for a turbine is $100,000/yr. Electricity from a wind turbine can
be sold to the grid for $60/MWhre. The turbine lifetime is 20 years. The discount rate is 0.04
annually. Inflation and taxes may be ignored. Which site offers the expectation of a better
investment?
Solution:
We can assess each of these sites by comparing their net present valuesthe difference
between the net present values of the expenditures and revenues.
Since we are to ignore inflation and taxes, the revenues from electricity generation and the costs
associated with O&M are fairly straightforward to compute.
The revenue associated with either site can be estimated as the price per MWhre times the
average power produced by the project.

If the turbines have their maximum electric power output at v=20 m/s, then the power produced
by the turbines goes as P=(3 MWe/8000) v3.
In order to find the average power produced by each site, we need to find an expression for this
and then perform a change of variables. Since the area under each of the probability curves
must integrate to one, the slopes of the velocity probability curves must be -0.005 and 0.005,
respectively.
For Site A: f(v)=0.1-0.005v
For Site B: f(v)=0.005v
The average values of the power outputs for each site can be found using
b

Pf (P)dP .
a

Basic probability theory says that the incremental area under related distributions must be the
same, so:
f(v) dv = f(P) dP
Using this with our equation for P, we get:
20

P=

8000 v

f (v)

20

Site A: P =

8000 (0.1v

0.005v 4 dv =

20

Site B: P =

3 0.1 4 0.005 5
20
20 = 0.3 MWe

8000 4
5

8000 0.005v dv = 8000 0.001 20


4

= 1.2 MWe

Without values for inflation provided, were only able to compare the total un-inflated revenue
with the initial investment and un-inflated capital costs.
Revenues for Site A: (0.3MWe)(24 h/day)(365 d/y)(20 y)($60/MWhe)= $3.1536 million
Revenues for Site B: (1.2 MWe)(24 h/d)(365d/y)(20 y)($60 MWhe)= $12.6144 million
The expenditures associated with O&M are the same for either site, and can be treated as a
lump sum paid out once per year. In the absence of inflation, the total expenditure for either site
is (20 years)($100,000/year)=$2 million

The present value of the capital cost for each site can be evaluated using:

PVcap

= over
T

1 + iI

0 1+ i
R
T 1

If we assume that the capital costs are paid off over the 20-year lifetime of the facility, and that
the money for future payments is not being invested (iR=0), the present value of the capital costs
is $4.466 million for Site A and $5.955 million for Site B.
The net present values are then:
Site A: $3.1536 million - $4.466 million - $2 million = -$3.3124 million
Site B: $12.6144 million - $5.955 million -$2 million = $4.6594 million
Site B is clearly the better choice.

Extra Credit (up to 5 Points): Once the more attractive site is identified what additional factors
should a potential investor take into account prior to deciding whether to fund the wind
turbine?
While the average is useful for making a first estimate of the worth of the investment, the
investor should also consider the impact of the uncertainty introduced by the wind speed
distribution. In addition, they should consider how the availability of subsidies, and the
associated uncertainty, affects their ability to recoup their costs.

Question 2 (50 Points):


An ocean thermal gradient electric generating system is proposed for siting in Hawaii. This
system would operate a heat engine driven by heat flow from warm ocean water (cooled from
27 C to 25 C in the heating heat exchanger of the system), and cooled by heat flow to cold
ocean water (which is heated from 3 C to 5 C in the cooling heat exchanger of the system).
The ocean water used in the different parts of the heat engine is obtained from different
depths of the surrounding sea. Using this heat engine electricity can be produced at 90% of the
corresponding Carnot efficiency of the heat engine.
Solution:
a. (10 points) What is the value of the Carnot efficiency of the heat engine? Explain the
basis for selecting the parameter values used in calculating this value.
The Carnot efficiency of the heat engine is 1-TC/TH, where Tc and Th are the maximum
temperature of the cold reservoir, and the minimum temperature of the hot reservoir,
respectively.
The minimum absolute temperature of the hot reservoir is 298 C, and the maximum
absolute temperature of the cold reservoir is 276 C, making the Carnot efficiency
1-(276/298)=0.074.
b. (15 points) Should the cold ocean water flow through the engine at a rate of 100 million
kg/min what is the electric power output of the engine
The heat carried away from the system is Qout=Qin-W.

The work done by the system is W=Qin*efficiency.

This means that Qout=W(1/efficiency 1).

Since the heat transferred to the working fluid is defined by its flow rate, temperature

change, and heat capacity as:

Qout=mcpT,

We find W=mcpT/(1/efficiency-1).

W=(100 x 106 kg/min)(min/60 s)(4.184 kJ/kg K)(2 C)/(1/0.074/0.9 -1 )

= 0.995 GWe.

c. (15 points) What is the corresponding flow rate of warm ocean water?

In order to find the flow rate of the warm ocean water, we need to balance the heat
rejected to the cold water, the heat rejected by the cold water, and the work done by the
system.
Qin=Qout+W=moutcpT+0.995 GWe
Qin=mincpT
min=(moutcpT+0.995 GWe)/cpT
=[(100 x 106 kg/min)(min/60 s)(4.184 kJ/kg)(2 C) +0.995 GWe)]/[(4.184 kJ/kg K)(2 C)]
=107.134 million kg/min
d. (10 points) Friction losses arising in pumping seawater through the engine account for
0.33 of the engines irreversibilities. Over time we can expect such friction losses to
double, due to befouling in the flow circuits. What would be the resulting value of the
heat engines efficiency?
Irreversibility is the difference between the maximum theoretical work which can be
done by the thermodynamic cycle and the actual work done.
The Carnot efficiency calculated for this cycle leads us to a maximum theoretical work of
Wmax=Qin*0.074=mincpT*0.074=(107.134 x 106 kg)(min/60s)(4.184 kJ/kg)(2 C)

*0.074=1.105 GWe.

The irreversibility is then 1.105 GWe-0.995 GWe=0.110 GWe.


If over time, the 33% of this value representing frictional loss doubles, we add an extra
33% to the irreversibility, for a total of 0.147 GWe lost work.
This makes the efficiency of the system (1.105 GWe-0.147 GWe)/Qin =0.064.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Rev. 12/2/10

2.650J/10.291/22.81J

INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABLE ENERGY


Fall 2010

TAKE HOME

EXAM #2

3 HOURS TOTAL

DUE BY 5:00 P.M., FRIDAY DECEMBER 3

1. (50 points) Consider a steady state nuclear power economy consisting of light water
reactors, all having a conversion ratio, C, of 0.10. Each reactor requires being loaded with
30 tonnes of fresh, 5% enriched in 235U, UO2 fuel per year, with an approximately equal
mass of depleted (i.e., having a 235U material concentration of 1.0%) fuel being removed
from the reactor.
(a) 10 points Of what does the fissile material of the removed fuel consist?
(b) 10 points What is the approximate mass concentration of fission products in the
removed fuel? Assume that only 235U has fissioned.
(c) 10 points For 1 kg of fresh fuel loaded into the reactor, approximately how much
thermal energy will be produced before the resulting fuel is removed from the reactor?
Again assume that only 235U has fissioned.
(d) 10 points Why is the assumption from Questions (b) and (c) a bad one?
(e) 10 points It is proposed to change the reactors conversion ratio value to 0.50. If the
power of the reactor is unchanged, qualitatively what will be the resulting changes in
the rate of production of 239Pu and timescale that the fuel can be used in the reactor?
Why? Assume that all plutonium produced is 239Pu.
Hint: You may approximate the production of 239Pu by assuming that each 235U nucleus
undergoing fission is replaced by C 239Pu nuclei.

1 of 2

Sustainable Energy
Exam #2
Page 2

2.

(50 points) In San Francisco, California, state and city tax credits are such that 10 kWe of
solar photovoltaic capacity can be installed in a residential home at no cost to the
homeowner. The electricity produced can be sold into the California ISO at a price of 6x
the cost of producing coal-based electricity.
What are the costs and benefits of this policy? (i.e., list the factors that should be taken into
account in such an evaluation.) Among those affected by this policy are homeowners,
taxpayers, solar technology manufacturers, installers and maintenance firms, electricity
consumers, future Californians, Navadians and Oregonians, consumers of electricity,
persons exposed to health harm from burning of coal, and persons who could be benefitted
by other uses of the funds devoted to such installations. For each such group, indicate the
costs and benefits of this policy.

EXTRA CREDIT, 5 POINTS:


Assuming that all of the costs and benefits of the policy mentioned in Problem 2 could be
quantified, show how you would use such results to decide whether to continue the policy.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.












235
0.05235+0.95238
235 0.05235+0.95238+216 (4%)

2352.5
235
(0.881)(4%)

= 3.488%








35.24g 6.022x1023a 200M eV 1.6x1013J
235g/mol
mol
a
M eV

= 2.89x1012J

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 1
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

These problems are not written to be mathematically challenging. Instead, the main challenge is to find
reliable data and use sound reasoning. For each of the problems you work out, provide a list of sources for
any data you used. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution. You can
turn in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
SE Students: Pick 3 of the 4 problems to solve.
Problems:
1. Supporters of the Cape Wind offshore wind project state that in average winds, Cape Wind will
provide for of Cape and Islands electricity needs. How much power (in MW) is consumed by
the Cape and Islands? What capacity factor is expected by the project? If the remainder of the
Cape and Islands energy needs are met by burning coal, how many tons of coal would be needed
per day? How many railcars would this daily coal supply fill?
2. Californias Renewable Portfolio Standard is among the most aggressive in the nation, requiring
in-state electric corporations to procure 33% of their portfolio from renewable energy sources by
2020. How much energy is this annually? What land area would be taken up by solar farms if
33% of Californias annual energy needs came from solar? What percentage of Californias land
area would this represent? How many small hydro plants would it take to displace the energy
produced by the existing large hydro fleet, which is not considered renewable?
3. What is the power rating of your computer? How much coal is required per year to allow for your
computing habits? How much does your computers electricity cost you per year?
4. SASOL, a South African Coal-to-Liquids (CTL) and Gas-to-Liquids (GTL) company, operates
what is considered to be the largest point source of carbon dioxide in the world, the Secunda
plant. How much carbon dioxide does SASOL emit annually from the Secunda plant? SASOLs
primary product is automotive fuel (primarily diesel), how much carbon dioxide does SASOL
emit per gallon of diesel fuel it produces at Secunda? How does this compare to the amount of
carbon dioxide emitted when a gallon of diesel fuel is burned?

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 2
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

For each of the problems you work out provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as
your assumptions. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution.
You can turn in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
SE Students: Pick 3 of the 4 problems to solve.
1. Energy conversion: The combustion of octane takes multiple steps, but these can be
condensed as
2C8H18 + 25O2 16CO2 + 18H2O
a. If this process is 100% efficient, how much thermal energy is produced via the
combustion of 1 gallon of gasoline? Use the provided enthalpies at the end to
support your answer.
b. Gasoline consists of octane plus a number of other hydrocarbons. How much
thermal energy is produced via combustion of a gallon of gasoline? What
component of this comes from combustion of octane?
c. Select a passenger car and calculate the efficiency of the vehicle in converting
chemical energy from combustion into kinetic energy.
2. Efficiency: You havent been to the grocery store in a while, and all you can find in your
apartment is a few packets of ramen noodles.
a. Calculate how much energy would be needed to raise the two cups of water you
need to cook your ramen to its boiling point.
b. List the sources of inefficiency associated with boiling this water in an electric
kettle, and find values for or estimate efficiency values for each energy
conversion. Trace back as far as your assumed electricity source.
c. How does the situation change if you heat the water on a gas stove? What
inefficiencies are avoided, and what are introduced? Estimate (rough estimates are
fine, but state your assumptions clearly) the total amount of gas needed to cook
your meal.
3. Personal Energy Audit
a. Recently, Sierra magazine (Jan-Feb 2003 issue) published a short Ecological
Footprint Quiz that was designed by The Redefining Progress Group, based in
Oakland California, to help people determine their ecological footprint or how
much land is needed to support their individual lifestyle. Please use their format to
estimate your personal ecological footprint in acres of land. Go to:
http://www.earthday.org/ to take the quiz. Print your quiz results
page and submit with your homework.
b. Alternatively, the Carbon Fund Foundation has developed a carbon footprint
quiz. Go to: http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/calculator to estimate your
carbon footprint. Print out your quiz results page and submit with your
homework.
1

c. Compare the merits and shortcomings of both of the quizzes. What, if anything,
would you add, subtract, emphasize, or de-emphasize?
4. Climate Change: Read a recent news story on the estimation of the carbon inventory of
rainforest: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19408-forest-carbon-stores-may-be
massively-overestimated.html. Take the role of an advisor to the UNs Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries initiative.
In light of the facts mentioned in the article, what actions would you recommend?
Summarize your recommendations in a page. Cite any supplementary sources you use.
Enthalpies of fusion for Problem 1
C8H18
O2
CO2
H2O

-249.9 kJ/mol
0 kJ/mol
-393.51 kJ/mol
-241.82 kJ/mol

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 3
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your submission. You can turn in the
homework online (via Stellar) or in class. For some problems you may need to use a spreadsheet (or some
computer program) to do the calculations, please turn in any spreadsheets or programs you create via the
stellar site. Make sure that these files are clean and clearly labeled. Name them as follows:
PSET2_Prob#_FirstInitialLastName.xls (or .m if a matlab mfile) so if John Johnson were to turn in an
excel sheet for problem #1 he would name it: PSET2_Prob1_JJohnson.xls.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
SE Students: Pick 3 of the 4 problems to solve.
1. Energy demand varies dramatically with time of day and time of year. Use the included data from the
EIA to answer the following questions.
Hourly DC-Metro Energy Demand, 9/22/10

Hour Ending
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Forecast Load
(GWe)
66.8
63.0
60.8
59.5
59.9
63.1
69.9
74.8

Hour Ending
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Forecast Load
(GWe)
78.4
82.3
86.2
89.7
92.8
95.9
98.3
95.9

Hour Ending
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Forecast Load
(GWe)
101.0
100.5
98.2
96.3
96.3
92.1
84.6
76.8

a. If DC area utilities consider 40% of peak demand to be their baseload electrical requirement,
what total amount of electrical energy is supplied daily by non-baseload generation?
b. Variable rate structures are popular for incentivizing use of electricity at off-peak hours and
discouraging use at peak hours. In the U.S., this is often realized as a single peak rate, and a
single off-peak rate. In parts of Canada, however, electricity is billed on a continually varying
rate. Find an average cost per kWh for a DC area utility, and use it to set a price for each hour of
the day so that the average price is preserved. Plot your pricing structure.
c. Is electricity demand perfectly directly related to price? If not, is it more elastic at certain times of
day than others? Make a case for your rate structure from part (b) or for an alternate structure.
2. Energy storage
a. If the District of Columbia were considering installing 1 MWe of wind generation in order to help
meet peak demand, how much land area would this consume? How does this compare to the land
area of DC?

b. For 12 hours in the middle of the night, the wind energy is not needed to meet demand, and so a
pumped storage system is proposed. What mass of water would need to be raised to a height of
100 m in order to store the produced energy? If the depth of the storage pond were limited to 5 m,
what land area would be taken up by the storage pond?
c. If the pumped storage system is discharged during each hour that demand in the DC area exceeds
90 GWe, what power on average would be supplied by the pumped storage system?
d. Consult a topographic map of DC to see whether any sites with the required geography (land area
and altitude differential) exist.
3. Debate has raged for decades over the potential of tapping the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve
(ANWR) for oil in order to reduce dependence on foreign oil. This debate is complicated by uncertainty
over how much oil actually exists on the site. The results of a 1998 assessment of the size of the reserve
are presented below. The different categories distinguish between federal and state lands for legal reasons,
and between geology types for reasons of technical recoverability.
Deposit
Federal undeformed
Federal deformed
State lands within 3 mi
radius

F95, MMBO
3403
0
0

Mean, MMBO
6420
1248
2692

F05
10224
3185
5425

a. Find the standard deviation associated with each of the measurements and explain how these
values are measured experimentally.
b. Use either Monte Carlo analysis or propagation of uncertainty to estimate the total volume of oil
in the survey area, and its associated uncertainty.
c. Find values for F95 and F05 for the total inventory. Assume that new legislation would permit oil
to be drilled, supplying a constant flow of oil for the next forty years. What percentage of annual
U.S. imports of oil would be displaced by this new supply? Assume current annual consumption
rates.
4. In the newspapers of 24 September 2010 are stories:
1) Announcing opening of the largest offshore wind farm in Europe (NY TIMES AND BOSTON
GLOBE), and
2) Discussing the need for loan guarantees for constructing future nuclear power plants
in the US (NY Times).
Concerning 1) contrast and critique the treatments of the two newspapers in providing
the information needed for a confident understanding of the implications and importance
of the new wind farm, and
Concerning 2) provide a critique of the arguments presented regarding the need for
construction loan guarantees for "merchant" and "regulated" nuclear power plants (stated
differently, what would be the arguments for and against having the government provide
such guarantees, and how do the arguments presented correspond to them).

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 4
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

For each of the problems you work out provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as your
assumptions. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution. You can turn
in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
SE Students: Pick 3 of the 4 problems to solve.

1. Policy impact on process economics A 1000 MWe power plant has an overnight cost of $2
billion (i.e. the cost of hardware). In different political jurisdictions the treatments of the funds
invested in the plant differ. Contrast the following two cases in terms of the total capital charge
values incurred during construction. In each case assume that the plant is built over a 10-year
interval, at a constant annual spending rate of $200 million/year. A return to the utility company
of 3.0% of the invested capital is allowed by the government. The annual rate of inflation is 4%.
Case 1:
The national government guarantees the loans used to finance the plant, resulting in a reduction
of the interest rate charged by lenders of 2.0%. Also, the national government permits any funds
expended to go into the electricity rate base immediately. This results in an additional 1.0%
reduction in the interest rate charged by lenders.
Case 2:
The plant is financed with commercial loans at a nominal annual interest rate of 12%, and no
capital investments are allowed into the rate base until the plant enters into operations. To what
extent does the national guarantee of the construction loans in Case 1 constitute a subsidy?
Explain why.
2. Do heat pumps make sense in North Dakota? In conventional air-to-air heat pump systems,
the atmosphere is used as a source of energy in the winter during heating season and as a sink for
heat rejection in the summer during air conditioning season. Geothermal ground source heat
pumps use an underground reservoir as a thermal heat source and sink. These reservoirs are
usually 3 to 10 meters deep, below the depth where seasonal fluctuations occur (i.e. below the
frost line). At these depths the temperature is about 15 C. A non-freezing, non-corrosive fluid,
like an aqueous solution of potassium acetate, is circulated through a coil of pipe buried in the
ground to transfer thermal energy to and from the ground.
a. How would you expect a geothermal heat pump system to perform in comparison to an air-to
air heat pump system operating under the following conditions in North Dakota?
(i) Summer day when the outside temperature is 100F (37.8 C)
(ii) Winter day when the outside temperature is 30F (-34.4 C)
People in North Dakota like to keep their homes at a constant 70F (21.1 C) year round.
Comparisons should be made on the ideal basis for a fully reversible system and should be
expressed in terms of units of heat (or cooling) transferred per unit of electrical work consumed,
which is called the coefficient of performance (COP).

b. What factors will limit the performance of practical heat pumps below their ideal limit?
3. The importance of T. You have been tasked by seismic energy to assess the lifetime
thermodynamic efficiency of an engineered geothermal system they installed one year ago in
southern California. A geological engineering firm has reported that the time evolution of the
temperature of the geothermal formation which you are extracting energy from will follow the
general relationship:
T(t)=Ae-Bt + C

where T(t = 0 years)= 800K, T(t = 1 years)=790K, and T(t->)->300K.

a. Solve for each of the constants A, B, and C and plot temperature versus time for 50 years.
b. Derive an expression for the maximum theoretical efficiency of a heat engine utilizing
this heat source versus time. Plot the maximum theoretical efficiency versus time for 10
years. Assume that there is sufficient ocean water available to maintain a cold
temperature of 295K for heat rejection.
c. Now suppose that the company has installed a steam Rankine heat cycle to convert this
heat source into usable work. Plot the efficiency on the same graph as (b). The pressure
ratio is 2 and the high pressure is 1 bar (i.e. the cycle runs under vaccum), the isentropic
pump efficiency is 90%, and the isentropic turbine efficiency is 75% (Hints: For a basis
assume a mass flow rate of 1kg/s of working fluid. Use the rankine cycle calculator
provided in class to calculate the efficiency at every year, then plot the series.)
4. Variable interest rates versus fixed interest rate. Your rich uncle recently
passed away and you have been left $1million from his estate. You have done some
research into different investment options and have narrowed your choices down to two.
The first option is a 10 year investment with a fixed annual interest rate of 5% which
compounds annually, the second is a 10 year investment which also compounds annually,
but the interest rate is variable and is given by the formula:

ivar iable (T ) = ivar iable (T 1) + R 1%


where T is year and R is a random number given by the probability distribution

1
1
1

P(R = 1) = , P(R = 0) = , P(R = 1) = .


3
3
3

Take i variable(T=0)=5%. For this problem neglect inflation.

a. On average, should the variable interest investment yield more, less, or the same

as the fixed interest investment? Why?

b. If which investment would you choose, and why?


c. Use Monte Carlo simulation to calculate what the expected value of the

investment will be after 10 years with the variable interest rate? What is the

standard deviation? The maximum achieved value? The minimum achieved

value?

d. What is the likelihood of losing money on the variable interest investment? What

is the likelihood that you will triple your investment in 10 years?

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 5
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

For each of the problems you work out provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as your
assumptions. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution. You can turn
in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
SE Students: Pick 3 of the 4 problems to solve.
1. Consider two power plants, each generating electric power W&e at 300 MWe and operating at an
annual capacity factor CF of 80%. One plant is fueled by bituminous coal and has an overall
efficiency of 35%. The other plant is combinedcycle, gasfired system for which the overall
efficiency is 55%. Assuming higher heating values (HHV, kJ/kgfuel) of 28,000 and 54,000 and
carbon contents (CC, MtC/Mtfuel) of 0.67 and 0.74 for the coal and natural gas, respectively,
determine the annual fuel requirement and CO2 emissions for each plant. Express your results in
tonnes (Mt). If coal and natural gas are priced at $80/Mt and $10/MMBtu, what is the annual fuel
cost FC for each system? If CO2 emissions from the gasfired system were used as the standard
for capping power plant emissions, by how much would the standard be exceeded for the coal
fired plant? Express your result in MtCO2. To discourage businessasusual practices in the
design and operation of coalfired plants, what carbon taxes would you recommend for emissions
exceeding the prescribed standard. Express your result in $ per MtC.
2. Consider that breeder reactors are to be built using 233U (obtained from 232Th) and 239Pu,

respectively.

a. What is the maximum conversion ratio that could be achieved in principle with each fuel?
(Assume that the reactor consists of pure fuel and that no neutrons escape from it.)
b. What factors cause realworld conversion ratios to be lower than the values you
calculated in part a?
c. Explain why reactor grade plutonium is not desired for use in a weapon.
3. In class we have noted that public participation in nuclear power plant licensing processes has led
to costly delays, and that such participation is justified by some, partially upon the basis that
alternative fora for defacto determination of the effective national energy policies are largely
unavailable within the U.S. political system. If public participation in licensing were to be
eliminated, it might be wise to create such fora. Propose two such methods for determination of
national energy policies and provide a critique contrasting them. (Hint, you might examine how
other countries do this.)
4. Consider a gasfired power plant for which an airstandard Brayton cycle can be assumed.
Ambient air enters the compressor at T1 = 300 K and p1 = 100 kPa, experiences a compression
ratio of p2 / p1 = 15 , and is heated to a turbine inlet temperature of T3 = 1600 K . The
compressor and turbine each have an isentropic efficiency of 80%.

a. Per unit mass of air, determine the work input and output for the compressor and turbine,
respectively, the heat addition, and the thermal efficiency of the cycle.
b. For a power plant generating 200 MWe with a turbine generator efficiency of

gen = 0.95 , what is the required air mass flow rate m& a in kg/s?
c. Using a lower heating value of 45,000 kJ/kg for natural gas, determine the mass flow rate
m& f in kg/s at which gas must be supplied to the combustor.
d. If the gas has a carbon content of 0.74 kgC/kgfuel, what is the corresponding rate of
CO2 production?
Suggestion: Isentropic exit conditions for the compressor and turbine can be determined from
tabulation of the ideal gas properties of air and use of the property pr (T ) . Specifically,

pr 2 =

p2
pr1
p1

pr 4 =

p4
pr 3
p3

Alternatively, if a constant specific heat is assumed, in addition to the assumption of ideal gas
behavior, exit conditions can be determined from the relations

T2 p2
=
T1 p1

0.286

0.286

T4 p4
=

T3 p3

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 6
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

For each of the problems you work out provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as your
assumptions. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution. You can turn
in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
1. Its a common misconception that non-nuclear sources of energy do not release radiation.
However, the presence of uranium and other radioactive materials within the Earths crust means
that burning of coal releases some radiation into the biosphere.
a. Find the mass of uranium liberated from the earths crust via the production of 1 GWye
from coal.
b. Find the activity (decay constant multiplied by number of atoms) corresponding to this
mass of uranium. Recall that natural uranium consists of multiple isotopes.
c. Find a reliable source on how much activity is produced (not necessarily released) during
production of 1 GWye from nuclear power.
d. In 2008, a spill of coal ash in East Tennessee constituted the largest ever release of
radiation to the public by the U.S. electric power industry, and yet this event received less
media attention than minor events at nuclear power stations in the same year. Comment
briefly on how perceived risk affects public opinion of these technologies.
2. Compare and contrast the regulations pertaining to siting of landfills for household and hazardous
waste and for spent nuclear fuel. Discuss the differences and similarities between the hazards
presented by each, particularly as a function of time.
3. Experts on anthropogenic greenhouse gases often say that CO2 is an inventory problem rather
than a production rate problem. Find a resource on the global rate of carbon fixation. In a few
pages, discuss to what extent the Obama energy platform discussed in Prof. Monizs lecture will
succeed in reducing CO2 production rate and inventory in the atmosphere. You should support
your answer numerically.

4. US versus Japan American drivers are often criticized for not being as conservative as
Japanese drivers. But lets take a closer look. The most popular car in the US is a Japanese car
the Toyota Camry - and its very likely that the Japanese drive as many Toyotas as we do, but
they might be smaller cars. How would the US compare to Japan if we somehow scaled the
amount of driving done in each country according to the size of the country? Are the results that
you calculate different? Roughly speaking Japan is the size of California with 128 million
people. You should explicitly state all your assumptions and cite all sources of data. Please
include several paragraphs explaining differences in your calculations, if any, in the amount of
driving done in each country. Also, please identify uncertainties in both your analysis and
conclusions.

Attribute

World

US

Japan

India

Population m
Area (106)km2
% arable
Urban pop %
GDP $bn
Pop <15 %
Pop >60 %

6,378
148
10.8%
49.2%
41,300
28.2%
10.4%

297
9.37
19%
80.8%
11,712
20.8%
16.7%

128
0.378
12%
65.7%
4,623
14.0%
26.3%

1,081
3.29
54%
28.7%
691
32.1%
7.9%

Energy mTOE
Total output
Total consumption
Net Imports as %
consumption

10,672
10,544
-1%

1,631
2,281
28%

85
517
84%

453
553
18%

Statistics from Pocket World in Figures, 2007 Edition, The Economist, Profile Books, London.

Average Daily Temperatures (oF) in Selected Cities


Location
Tokyo
Bombay
New York
Los Angeles

January
High
Low
48
83
32 avg.
57 avg.

31
67

April
High

July
Low

64
89
53 avg.
61 avg.

From http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004587.html

48
76

High

October
High
Low

Low

84
85
77 avg.
69 avg.

71
77

70
89
57 avg.
67 avg.

56
76

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 7
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

For each of the problems you work out, provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as your
assumptions. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution. You can turn
in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
1. Home Solar PV Installation: The recent conversations about energy security have included a lot
of discussion on programs to install PV solar generation in homes.
a. Find a reference for the average electrical energy usage of a home in your home state.
b. Based on this usage, choose a system for generation of this energy by solar power.
Calculate the required area of solar panels and estimate the costs for the panels plus
installation. Keep in mind that capacity factor will depend on location.
c. Based on electricity prices in your home state, how long will it take for the system to pay
for itself in electricity bill savings?
2. Geothermal in the U.S.: Some argue that geothermal energy is a dilute, low-grade energy
resource that is too small to make a difference.
a. Given that the U.S. consumes about 100 quads annually, estimate the minimum mass of
hot rock needed to meet annual demand assuming the rock mass is at 200 C initially.
b. Given that the average geothermal temperature gradient is 20 C/km for the US, how
much thermal energy is stored in rock to a depth of 10 km corresponding to depths that
can be reached using conventional drilling technology?
c. An ambient temperature of 25 C can be assumed. The surface area of the U.S. is
9.37x106 km2. You can assume that the rock mass under the surface of the US is solid
granite with a density of 2500 kg/m3 and a heat capacity of 1000 J/kg K.
3. Tradeoffs in geothermal: In dealing with EGS geothermal energy there is always the option to
drill deeper to reach higher rock temperatures. Higher temperatures would provide some
thermodynamic advantages as the availability or work producing potential would increase so
less geofluid would be needed per unit of electrical energy generated. However, drilling deeper
increases the cost of wells. Discuss the inherent tradeoffs that exist in EGS development and
prepare a qualitative plot of capital cost on the y-axis versus reservoir temperature on the x-axis
showing three curves - one for the subsurface system (wells and reservoir), one for the surface
power plant, and one for the total capital cost. A lower grade of the EGS resource should be
used as a basis to define how rock temperature increases with depth where the average
gradient is about 30 oC/km.
4. New solar generation prospects for Europe: Read the article Sending African Sunlight to Europe,
Special Delivery, from Science Magazines August 2010 edition:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/329/5993/782.pdf.
Imagine you are an advisor to a European government considering investing in this project. In a
few pages, sum up the risks involved from a financial, technical, and geopolitical standpoint.
Conclude your commentary with recommendations to your advisee.

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

Problem Set 8
Intro to Sustainable Energy 2.650/10.291/22.081

&

Sustainable Energy 1.818/2.65/10.391/11.371/22.811/ESD.166

For each of the problems you work out provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as your
assumptions. Be sure to mark which course number you are registered for on your solution. You can
turn in the homework online (via Stellar) or in class.
Intro to SE Students: Pick any 2 of the 4 problems to solve.
1. Petroleum savings via ethanol use: The production of ethanol for use in liquid fuels has been heavily
subsidized in recent years. In assessing the success of these programs, it's important to keep the entire
life cycle of ethanol fuels in mind.
a. Up to 10% by volume of gasoline in the U.S. may consist of corn-based ethanol. Using this
information, calculate the amount of crude oil that the U.S. saves per year via the displacement
of gasoline by ethanol.
b. Burning of ethanol is also more favorable than burning of gasoline from a carbon-emissions
standpoint. Calculate the tonnage of CO2 saved per year by displacement of gasoline with
ethanol in the U.S.
c. Find the amount of oil consumed in the conversion of corn to ethanol. Compare this to the
amount consumed during the oil refining process which supplies us with gasoline
d. What factors have been left out of this calculation so far? Find references for the magnitudes
of these factors, and sum up the total amount of petroleum saved in a year, and total amount of
CO2 saved in a year.
2.
Energy savings of plug-in vehicles: Pick a small passenger car. If this car were to be powered
by battery, calculate what percentage of its fuel requirements and carbon emissions could be
eliminated. Take into account each step in the production of energy to power the car via coal power,
and comment on how these would change if the car's battery were charged using a nuclear power
station.
3.

Textbook problem 10.1

4.

Textbook problem 18.2

MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J


Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.