20081spring 2001

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
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
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
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

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

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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
W ORLD G AS R ESERVES = 6189
MILLION MILLION CUBIC FEET
Gas in Russia
Data normalized to peak value.
S.E. Lecture 2
14
Energy usage
W ORLD O IL R ESERVES = 1277
THOUSAND MILLION BARRELS
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

Fall 2010
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%
97% (100%)
7%
< 0.25%
80% (97%)
0.25%
< 0.25%
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

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

Fall 2010
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
Energy Conversion
Energy Conversion is the process of
changing energy from one form to another
Energy
Source
Energy
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
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
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
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
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)
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
Order of Magnitude of Energy Resources
Source: World Energy Council
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
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

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

15
Sources
Energy Forms
Sources

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:
transportation
Fuel cells
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
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
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
19
Rate Processes in Energy Conversion

Heat Transfer
Mass Transfer
ec tions
ons
Chemica l Reac
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
33
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
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.
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.
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

Fall 2010
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
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

Fall 2010
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
Footprints
Motivation
D ISCUSSION
How much does our location globally have to do with our

footprint?
Solutions? Equity?
Consequences?
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
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
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
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
Footprints
Case Studies

P RINCETON ?
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
Footprints
Case Studies

P RINCETON ?
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
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
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
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
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
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

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
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
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)
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
NEW MEXICO SUBJECTIVE

PROBABILITY STUDY (AFTER DELPHI)
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

Fall 2010
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
Sources
Energy Forms
Sources

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:
transportation
Fuel cells
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

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
Options to Manage Supply & Demand

Excess capacity plus dispatch system
Demand management
Energy storage
8

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

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

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.
11
Motivation for storage

Transmission Congestion
Demand for Portable Energy
Efficiency of Energy Systems
Energy Recovery
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
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
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
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.
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
Flywheel Technology:
High Power Density but Low Specific Energy
Image of POWERTHRU Flywheel removed due to copyright restrictions.
19
Pentadyne GTX Flywheel

Supercapacitor:
High Power Density but Low Specific Energy
Current Collecting Plate

Active Electrode
Separator
Active Electrode
Current Collecting Plate
Opportunities:
Increased effective area
Enhanced dielectric materials
20
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
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
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
Comparing Storage Technologies Ragone Plot
Omitted from chart:

Low Energy-Density
Storage for Large
Stationary
Applications:
Hydro, Flow Batteries,
Compressed Air
24
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
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)
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
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
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
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
Energy Transmission outline of topics

Options and costs
Infrastructure and scale
Issues
35
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
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.
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
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
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
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010
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?
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
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
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.
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?
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!!
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
$2040
15
#$%&'(&)&*&+,&'-.%/&*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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
#$%&''()*+,*-./%/0,12'/
345%64/)%+-)7%,88/9*%94$)*+(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

Fall 2010
1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

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

Fall 2010
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
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
Image from "Electric Power Industry Restructuring Fact Sheet." Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, July 27, 2005.
Image from "Electric Power Industry Restructuring Fact Sheet." Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, July 27, 2005.

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
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
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
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
Electricity follows the path of least resistance.
Chang
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

Fall 2010
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

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

Smart Grid

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
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
James L. Kirtley
Professor
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
Nancy L. Rose
Professor
Department of Economics
Gerald L. Wilson
Professor Emeritus
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

Smart Grid

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

Smart Grid

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

Smart Grid

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.
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.

Adapted from "What is Phasor Technology?"
Advanced Concepts FAQ, Phasor-RTDMS.
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.
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
Peak demand occurs rarely (and is very expensive for the system)
34
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.
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.
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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
AC
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!
AC
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
AC
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
AC
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
AC
Reactive power
2t
)
2t
)
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
AC
Reactive power
2t
+ )
2t
)
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
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
AC
Reactive power
Phase shifts are introduced by inductance

A motor will have an inductance, L.
L
I
V cos(t)
15
AC
Reactive power

It will introduce a phase shift given by tan =
L
R
L
I
V cos(t)
15
AC
Reactive power

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
AC
Reactive power

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
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
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
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
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
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
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
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
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
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)
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)
0 = Q& H Q& C W&

W&
W& = Q& H Q& C
Entropy balance:
Sgen
0 (steady state)
0 (2nd
(2nd llaw)
aw)
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

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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.
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
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.
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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%

Efficiency
Carnot & Carnot* Efficiency for Range of Temperature Ratios

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Carnot
Carnot*
TH/TC
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
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
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
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
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
S
12
Reheat Cycles
Reheat between Turbines More Power & Dry Turbines
BOILER
HPT
LPT
PUMP
REHEAT
CONDENSE
13
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
S
14
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
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
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
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
19
Brayton Cycle
Brayton Cycle = Rankine Cycle Boiling Condensation
20
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

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
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
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
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
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

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

Fall 2010
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)
Integrated Gasification Combined

Cycle
Source: Botero, MIT

29
Courtesy of Cristina Botero. Used with permission.
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
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
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)

Source: Emanuel, Kerry. "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical
Cyclones over the Past 30 years." Nature 436 (2005): 686-688. 2005.
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
1212
Price-based
mitigation
50% by 2050
No offsets
Electric sector
Total energy
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

Fall 2010
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%

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%
Reason
able
problem
12%

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)

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)

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

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

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
Note: The respondents who chose

the option Other, specified their
choice as Politicians

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
Tax
reduction
(e.g.
tenencia)
6%
Rank 1
Road and
public
transport
improvem
ents
60%

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
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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
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
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

Fall 2010
1.818J/2.65J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
2.650J/10.291J/22.081J
INTRODUCTION TO
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
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

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)
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
YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE

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


11

CANISTER PLACED INSIDE
WASTE PACKAGE

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

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


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

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


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

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.


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


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


31

NUCLEAR WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Image by U.S. Department of Energy.

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.

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

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

37

EXPLORATORY STUDIES
FACILITY
NOTE:
This is pictorial only
and not drawn to scale.


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

50

51

52

NPR IN ACTION
53

TUNNEL HEATING
MEASUREMENT
54

TUNNEL HEATING MEASUREMENT,
VISITING ENGINEER
55

TUNNEL HEATING
MEASUREMENT
56

THERMAL PROBES
57

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

Fall 2010
1.818J/2.65J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
2.650J/10.291J/22.081J
INTRODUCTION TO
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
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
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
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.
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
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
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

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
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
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
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
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.
GASEOUS DIFFUSION
CASCADES
Gaseous Diffusion Stage
Barrier
Low pressure
Enriched
stream
Depleted
stream
High pressure
feed stream
Low pressure
URENCOS ALMELO CENTRIFUGE

ENRICHMENT PLANT
Photo of the centrifuge uranium enrichment plant in Almelo, the Netherlands

37
COMMERCIAL-SCALE FACILITY FOR

CARBON ISOTOPE SEPARATION IN
KALININGRAD
Photo of the Molecular Laser Isotope Separation project at IMP-KIAE

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

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

Fall 2010
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
How Would We Get Useful Power From Fusion?
Superconducting
Magnets
Heat Exchanger
Generator
Fusing
Plasma
Turbine
Blanket/Shield
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.)
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)
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
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
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.
How Are We Doing? By Some Measures We Are

Outpacing The Semiconductor Industry
Each step gets more difficult and more expensive
ITER 2020?
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
10
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
(Net Reaction is 1D2 + 3Li6 = 2 2He4)
11
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
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
13
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
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
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
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
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
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.
19
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
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
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
In The Simple Example Shown,

There Is No Confinement At All
Parallel To The Magnetic Field
Electrons
_
ions
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
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
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
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)
25
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
32
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.
34
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The End
42
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
Why Are Cost Estimates Similar? (Except for Fuel)

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
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
46

Please see Fig. 7 in Cook, I., et al. Safety and
Environmental Impact of Fusion. April 2001, EFDA-S-RE-1.
47

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.
Need To Increase Power And Pulse Length
1500 MWDemonstration
ITER
Reactor
500 MW
15 MW
JET
Resistive-pulsed
Superconducting
Tore Supra
48
ITER Construction Schedule
49
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.
50
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
Two Strategies To Create This Configuration

Stellarator
Tokamak
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
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
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
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
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
Plasma Turbulence Simulation
Ion gyro-scale turbulence

Note period of linear growth
Saturation via self-generated zonal flows
57
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
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
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010
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

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

Fall 2010
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
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
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
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
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
Enzymes 1516 are not native to the host
Xylosefermenting Saccharomyces cerevisiae

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.
Glycerolfermenting Escherichia coli

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.
Butanolproducing Escherichia coli
Source: Metab. Eng. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ymben.2007.08.003

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.
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

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.

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.

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.
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

Fall 2010
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
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)
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)

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]

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

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

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

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

Size-Based Standards
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 186 / Monday, September 28, 2009 / Proposed Rules
11/18/10
26

Size-Based Standards
11/18/10
27

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.
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

Fall 2010
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
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
40
Energy Inputs to Corn
Machinery
Seeds
Electricity
Pesticide
Lime
PK
Nitrogen
Irrigation
Fossil Fuels
0
MJ/kg EtOH
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

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
Net Energy Value Cellulosic
Ethanol
GHG Cellulosic Ethanol
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

Fall 2010
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
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.
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

Prof. Jay Forrester

SD Basics

World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

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
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

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
Fuel prices
What should be
Exogenous to
electric grid
system?
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)
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
Limits to Success
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?
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


Prof. Jay Forrester

SD Basics

World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

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
FOSSIL2/IDEAS
(Naill/Wood)
1990
2000
2010
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
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

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
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.

Prof. Jay Forrester

SD Basics

World Dynamics
Electric Utilities

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)
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].
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.
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)

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
Whats With Wind
Thanks!
Q&A
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
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

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

smart grid requires rapid response capability
transmission line congestion
load leveling
load following
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
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
on discharge
Mg(liquid)
2
+
Mg
Sb(liquid) + 3
liquid
metal
battery
e-
+ 2
3
Sb
Molten Magnesium
Electrolyte
Refractory
lining
refra
Molten Antimony
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
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
November 23, 2010
motivation (continued)
without the need for this:
Image by Mirjana Chamberlain-Vucic on Flickr.
Sadoway
November 23, 2010
relevant enabling technology
Heavy
Duty
Batter
y
Sadoway
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
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
1991 NESCAUM formed

1992 MA adopts CA standards
in the minds of many policy makers, ZEV implies EV
Sadoway
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
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
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
November 23, 2010
A simple chemical reaction
PbO2 + Pb + H2SO4(aq)
2 H2O + PbSO4
intimate mixing of all reactants
Sadoway
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
November 23, 2010
Electrons in motion
Pb + SO42(aq)
PbSO4 + 2 e
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42(aq) + 2 e

2 H2O + PbSO4
Sadoway
November 23, 2010
Electrons in motion
PbSO4 + 2 e Pb + SO42(aq)
2 H2O + PbSO4
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42(aq) + 2 e
Sadoway
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
2+
Pb
n
(red )
November 23, 2010
Lead-acid battery on discharge
Sadoway
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
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
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
November 23, 2010
Battery Performance Metrics
[1] J.-M. Tarascon and M. Armand, Nature 414, 359 - 367 (2001)
Sadoway
Ragone plot
Source: Tarascon, J. M., and M. Armand. "Issues and Challenges Facing Rechargeable Lithium Batteries." Nature 414 (2001). 2001.
November 23, 2010
Warhol, Marilyn Diptych (1962) Tate Gallery
Please see Andy Warhol, "Marilyn Diptych," 1962.
Sadoway
November 23, 2010
Sadoway, GM EV1 Diptych (2005) Private Collection
1 Wh/kg storage capacity
1 mile driving range
Sadoway
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
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
theoretical capacity limited << 300 mAh/g

The Future compounds where metal cycles
over multiple redox steps
Sadoway
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
November 23, 2010
Your wildest dream

Li+ + 3e- + LiXCrO3 Li1+XCrO3
+
Li
3e
6+
Cr
+
Li
3+
Cr
1000 mAh/g !
700 Wh/kg ! 700 mi
Sadoway
November 23, 2010
Your wildest dream

Li+ + 3e- + LiXMnO4 Li1+XMnO4
+
Li
3e
7+
Mn
+
Li
4+
Mn
1000 mAh/g !
700 Wh/kg ! 700 mi
Sadoway
November 23, 2010
supervalent battery: beyond lithium

energy density (ion charge)2
can Li become a strategic resource?
Sadoway
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
November 23, 2010

with MITEI support we have begun
searching for redox couples based upon
ions of valence 3, e.g.,
Sadoway
3+
Al
November 23, 2010

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
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
November 23, 2010

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
November 23, 2010

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
November 23, 2010
potential showstoppers
Cost: noble-metal electrodes

Cost: no infrastructure
for H2 delivery
Effectiveness: will this truly
reduce CO2 emissions?
Sadoway
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
November 23, 2010
in summary
Development of human resources:

electrochemical science & engineering need

sustained support to attract and retain the
best and brightest
Sadoway
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
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
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

Fall 2010
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
Traditional Solution Focus
Neglected Focus
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
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.

Please see Fig. 23 in "Energy Future: Think Efficiency."
American Physical Society, September 2008.
Energy Efficient
Photos of terraced houses removed

Swedish Homes
Comfortable
No Central
Heating
System!
Genzyme Cambridge MA
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

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]

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
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

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
&
D
,
^

K
K
Integrated design and operation of building and its systems
State-of-the-Art
Customer
Architect
Building
Engineer
Control
Engineer
MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J

Fall 2010
1.818J/2.65J/2.650J/10.291J/10.391J/11.371J/
22.081J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
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)

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
success
core melt
1.50E-06
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

Fall 2010
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
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
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

Fall 2010
1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

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.
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

(223m) high
2080
Norris Dam TVA
Clinch River, Norris Lake,

Tennessee

(81m) high
131.4
Glen Canyon
Colorado River, Lake

Powell, Arizona

(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

(196 m) high
14,000
23.5 x 1012 acre ft.

29 million km3
Three Gorges
Yangze River, Three

Gorges Lake China

(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

(162 m) high
(124 m) high

135 km3
73.3 km3
8671
+5616
+1197
+ 469
+ 768
6,000

11.9 km3
nil
35.2 km3

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
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

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

Fall 2010
Sustainable Energy
Options for Africa
Robert Stoner
Associate Director
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

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
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
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
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
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

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010
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?

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

Fall 2010
Sustainable Energy Take-Home Exam 1
Solutions

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.

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

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010

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

Fall 2010
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 2
&
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.
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 3
&
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.
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 4
&
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.
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 5
&
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 6
&
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 7
&
For each of the problems you work out, provide a list of sources for any data you used, as well as your
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

Fall 2010
Problem Set 8
&
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.
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

Fall 2010

20081spring 2001

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

20081spring 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.

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

COURSE MATERIAL, CONT

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

Undergraduate Student Requirements

Graduate Student Requirements

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

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

Prof. Michael W. Golay

ENERGY USES IN DIFFERENT

LAS VEGAS STRIP

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

ENERGY USES IN DIFFERENT

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

Overview of Energy Use and Related Issues

or, Energy - Whats the problem

Dr. John C. Wright

W ELL KNOWN ISSUES

Energy use is increasing

Pressure on standard of living

S OME PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Replace coal with renewables (wind, solar)

M ORE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

Drive smaller cars

Build smaller houses

Course and this lecture

M AIN C OURSE G OALS

Put logic and order into the energy situation

Course and this lecture

E NERGY S OURCES AND U SES

A useful breakdown of energy usage

Heating - anything will do

Energy by Application in 2007

Resource usage breakdowns

Transportation vs. heating

Resource usage breakdowns

How do we obtain electricity?

Resource usage breakdowns

W ORLD C OAL R ESERVES = 930423

MILLON SHORT TONS

[data from doe.eia.gov]

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

W ORLD G AS R ESERVES = 6189

MILLION MILLION CUBIC FEET

[data from doe.eia.gov]

Data normalized to peak value.

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

W ORLD E NERGY C ONSUMPTION

Note recent reduction in 2008-2009.

H OW LONG WILL THE SUPPLIES LAST ?

Oil and natural gas - 50 years

H OW ABOUT USING H INSTEAD OF NUCLEAR TO

Hydrogen is not a naturally occurring fuel

Basic problems are tough

Takes considerable energy to produce hydrogen.

Energy density is low: vs. for gasoline.

T HE M AJOR T ECHNOLOGIES OF I NTEREST