You are on page 1of 6

A1

Capacity: 80GW total; 30GW natural gas, 25GW coal, 20GW nuclear, 5GW Renewables
Generated 500TWh
Load factors: nuclear 0.9, coal 0.75, Renewable 0.3
a) Amount generated:
nuclear: E= C ×P ×24hrs×365 days/ 1000= 0.9 × 20 × 24×0.365= 157.7TWh
coal: E = 0.75×25×24×0.365= 164.3TWh
Renewabls: E = 0.3 × 5 × 24 × 0.365= 15.3TWh
This accounts for 337.3TWh, and the remaining 162.7TWh must have come from gas
The load factor for the gas generation was thus C=E/P/24/0.365= 30/162.7/24/.365= 0.62
b) Carbon dioxide emissions
Coal: Heat content 30MJ/kg; carbon content 0.85; efficiency 0.3
Electricity generated: 164.3TWh = 164.3 × 3.6 ×109 MJ= 5.91×1011 MJ
Required heat input: Output/efficiency = 5.91×1011/0.3 = 1.97×1012 MJ
Amount of coal: heat/heat content: 1.97×1012 / 30= 6.57×1010 kg
Amount of carbon: amount of coal× carbon content= 6.57×1010 ×0.85= 5.58×1010 kg
Each carbon atom, of weight 12, reacts with an oxygen molecule of weight 2×16=32 to
make carbon dioxide of weight 12+2×16= 44. So, each kg of carbon results in
44/12= 3.67kg of carbon dioxide.
This gives a total emission from coal of 5.58×1010 ×3.67 = 2.05×1011 kg
gas: Heat content 50MJ/kg; methane content 0.75, ethane 0.1; efficiency 0.5
Electricity generated: 162.8TWh = 162.8 × 3.6 ×109 MJ= 5.86×1011 MJ
Required heat input: Output/efficiency = 5.86×1011/0.5 = 1.17×1012 MJ
Amount of gas: heat/heat content: 1.17×1012 / 50= 2.34×1010 kg. Of this is
2.34×1010 × 0.75= 1.76×1010 kg methane and 2.34×1010 × 0.1= 2.34×109 kg ethane.
For methane, each methane molecule, of weight 12+4= 16, reacts with an oxygen molecule
of weight 2×16=32 to make carbon dioxide of weight 16+2×16= 48. So, each kg of methane
results in 48/16= 3kg of carbon dioxide.
This gives an emission from methane of 1.76×1010 ×3 = 5.27×1010 kg
For ethane, C2H6, each molecule, of weight 2×12+6= 30, reacts with two oxygen molecule
of weight 2×2×16=64 to make 2 carbon dioxide molecules of weight 2×(16+2×16)= 96.
So, each kg of methane results in 96/30= 3.2kg of carbon dioxide.
This gives an emission from methane of 2.34×109 ×3.2 = 7.50×109 kg
The carbon dioxide emission from the gas-fired generation was therefore 6.02×1010 kg, and
the total carbon dioxide emission was 2.65×1011 kg.
c) New gas requirement
The projected annual consumption is 575TWh.
With a maximum load factor, the gas generation would be = C ×P ×24hrs×365 days/ 1000=
0.85 × 30 × 24×0.365= 223.4TWh.
With the existing generation from the other fuels, one could therefore provide 337.3TWh +
223.4TWh= 560.6TWh, leaving a shortfall of 14.4TWh.
To cover this by gas, the new capacity has to be P= E/C×24×365) ×1000= 1.93GW ~ 2GW.
d) Switch from coal to gas
The total carbon dioxide emission may not exceed 0.9×2.65×1011 kg= 2.38×1011 kg.
From (b) we know that
each TWh from coal results in 2.05×1011 kg/ 164.3TWh= 1.25×109 kg/TWh, and
each TWh from gas results in 6.02×1010 kg/ 162.8TWh= 3.70×108 kg/TWh.
Just using the existing generation capacity plus the 2GW found in (c), we would get a total
emission of the current emission from coal, 2.05×1011 kg, and that from the gas generation
(224.4TWh+14.4TWh= 238.8TWh) of 3.70×108 kg/TWh×238.8TWh= 2.93×1011 kg.
A reduction of 2.93×1011 kg – 2.38×1011 kg= 5.43×1010 kg is needed by switching from coal
to gas.
The net saving per TWh switched is 8.77×108 kg/TWh,
and we need 5.43×1010 kg/8.77×108 kg/TWh= 61.9TWh, which can be provided by an
additional capacity of 61.9TWh/(0.85×24×365)×1000= 8.31GW.
The capacity from coal which can be taken off is 9TWh/(0.75×24×365)×1000= 9.42GW.
To cover the growth in demand and reduce the carbon dioxide emissions, a total new
capacity of gas-fired generation is therefore 1.93+8.31= 10.24GW.
e) The student should question whether this policy can be sustained in the long term, given the
decline in gas reserves, both in the North Sea and globally. At some point, the gas prices will
become very high, and the country will be become dependent on the gas suppliers (ME/NA/FSU)…
A2
The entire problem is treated as one-dimensional heat transfer.
Chip: Area A= 0.01×0.025= 0.00025m2; Insulation: di= 0.002m; ki= 0.2W/(mK)
Thermal paste Rp= 0.5W/K; Aluminium da= 0.001m, ka= 300 W/(mK)
Board: db= 0.002m, kb= 0.2W/(mK); hb= 0.5W/(m2K);
Air: 35°C
Heat flux 300mW
a) Total thermal resistance required: R= ∆T/Q= 25/0.3= 83.3 K/W.
b) Thermal resistance to heat transfer through board:
R= ( di/ki + db/kb + 1/hb)/A= 8080 K/W.
As this is a factor of 100 larger than the required resistance, very little waste heat can be lost
through the board, and this contribution can be ignored
c) Thermal resistance to surface of aluminium:
R= ( di/ki + da/ka)/A + Rp = 40.5 K/W.
As a result the convective heat transfer from the top of the heat sink must result in a
resistance of Rc= 83.3–40.5= 42.8 K/W
Rc= 1/(hA) → A= 1/(hRc)= 1/(25×42.8)= 0.00093m2.
This is 3.74 times larger than the chip surface -> seems reasonable.
d) Using Ahs= 0.001m2:
The thermal resistance for the convection is then Rc= 1/(25×0.001)= 40 K/W, and the total
resistance is R= 80.5 K/W.
The temperature of the chip is then T= T0 + R Q= 35 + 80.5×0.3= 59.2°C,
and the temperature of the heat sink is T= T0 + Rc Q= 35 + 40×0.3= 59.2°C.
e) check assumption
The thermal resistance including that through the board is
1/R = 1/Rtop + 1/Rboard= 1/80.5 + 1/8080= 0.012544 or R= 79.7.
The error was therefore 80.5-79.7= 0.8, or 0.8/79.7= 1%
f) broken fan, h= 5W/(m2K)
The thermal resistance for the natural convection is then Rc= 1/(5×0.001)= 200 K/W, and the
total resistance is R= 240.5 K/W.
The temperature of the chip is then T= T0 + R Q= 35 + 240.5×0.3= 107°C,
and the temperature of the heat sink is T= T0 + Rc Q= 35 + 200×0.3= 95°C.
Maximum heat generation: Q= DT/R= 25/240.5= 104mW.
A3
a) Since the temperature increase from the inlet temperature is by isentropic compression,
T2/T1= (p2/p1)(-1)/  = rp(-1)/ = 14.8 0.4 / 1.4 = 2.16 or T2= 2.16 T1 = 648K.
The combustion may therefore result in a temperature increase of 1500K – 648K = 852 K.
As the combustion is a constant-pressure process (per unit mass:) Qin= CP ∆T = 861 kJ/kg
air-gas mixture.
Since the heat content of the gas is 51MJ/kg or 51000kJ/kg, we need 861/51000 = 0.017 kg
gas/ kg mix.
The natural gas contains 80% of methane (weight 16) and 20% of nitrogen (weight 28),
making together 16+0.2/0.8*28= 23 or 23/16= 1.44 (scaling everything by methane).
The air consists of 20% oxygen (weight 32)
The molecular weight of methane, CH4, is 16, that of oxygen, O2, is 32, and that of nitrogen,
N2, is 28.
The combustion of one methane molecule needs two oxygen molecules, CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2
+ 2H2O.
The mass balance is that for 16kg of methane, 64kg of oxygen are used, or 4kg of oxygen
per kg of methane.
Since the air consists of 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, the air containing 1kg of oxygen
also contains 4*28/32= 3.5kg of nitrogen, or the air containing 4kg of oxygen contains 14kg
of nitrogen, giving a total air mass of 18kg to react with 1kg of methane, or a total mass of
the air-fuel mixture of 19kg.
With that, we know that for stochiometric combustion,19kg of the mixture contains as
much heat as 1kg or methane, or that 1kg of the mixture has a heat content of 54/19 MJ/kg=
2.84MJ= 2840kJ.
As this is much higher than the 861kJ/kg limit given by the maximum temperature of the
combustion chamber, there will be excess air going through the system, in a ratio of
2840/861= 3.3. For each kg of methane, we need 18×3.3= 59kg of air.
b) The work output stage is again an isentropic process,
T4/T3= (p4/p3) (-1)/ ; T4 = T3 * (1/14.8) (-1)/ = 695K.
The heat rejected is then Q= CP ∆T= CP (695–300)= 399 kJ/kg.
c) The net work output is then 861 – 399= 462kJ/kg,
and the efficiency is 462/861= 54%.
d) To generate 5.5MW, we need to provide an input of 5.5MW/54% = 10.2MW.
Since the heat content of methane is 54MJ/kg, we need to have a methane flow rate of
10.2/51= 0.201kg/s,
and an air flow rate (see part 1.) of 59* 0.201kg/s = 11.9kg/s.
e) The stated heat input is a measure of its efficiency:
11.74MJ heat per 3.6MJ electricity gives 3.6/11.74= 31% which is 57% of the theoretical
efficiency. The required air flow rate of 19kg/s is increased approximately by that ratio
compared to the calculated one. The temperature of the exhaust gases is substantially
higher. This obviously leads to possible conclusions that neither the compression nor
expansion stage are truly isentropic…
A4
H= 350m Q= 25 m3/s N= 600rpm= 10 rev/s

a)
The overall expected efficiency is ηεξπ= ηT×ηo= 0.95×0.94= 89%.
The hydraulic power is Ph= ρgHQ= 1000×9.81×350×25= 85.8MW.
The efficiency of the installed turbines is therefore η=70/85.8= 82%.
The performance of the current turbines is therefore not abysmal but not as good as it could be.

b)
The specific speed of the turbines is KN= ω (P/ρ)1/2 (gH)–5/4= 2π×10× (70,000)1/2 / (9.81×350)5/4= 0.632.
Both, the operating head and the specific speed are well within the typical operating range for Francis
turbines.
The choice of a Francis turbine was therefore an appropriate choice.

c)
The power output from one jet is P1= ρ (KN/ω)2 (gH)5/2= 2.76MW.
We would therefore need 70/2.76= 28 jets to generate 70MW, which is excessive
(at least 4 multi-jet Pelton Wheels to replace a single Francis turbine).
Pelton Wheels are at their most effective at higher heads (>500m).

d)
A single turbine generating 280MW would have a specific speed of
KN= 2π×10× (280,000)1/2 / (9.81×350)5/4= 1.265.
This is at the top end of a Francis turbine and well within the range of a mixed-flow turbine. I would
therefore choose a mixed-flow turbine to replace the four Francis turbines. Such a turbine would probably
operate near its upper head limit but should be acceptable. Such an installation might be cheaper than four
turbines and generators but, with a single turbine, the risk of a complete loss of generation is much higher
than with several turbines.

e)
A turbine with a specific speed of 3.6 would be an axial-flow (Kaplan) turbine which is not suitable for
heads much above 100m.
Even if it were, the best-efficiency power output from this turbine would be P= ρ (KN/ω)2 (gH)5/2= 2.5GW.
This is much higher than the hydraulic power actually provided by the given flow rate.
As a result, this turbine would not be a good match to the operating conditions.
B1
The student could mention possibilities such as a strong expansion of gas-fired capacity (with the
associated problems of dependency on imported fuel and projected price rises as the resource
becomes depleted), a renewal of the nuclear programme (with associated problems of public
acceptance and waste disposal), Clean-coal development (with the technological challenges faced
by carbon capture and storage), and massive development of Renewables (with the problems of
gaining planning permission for many onshore sites, the integration of Renewables into the
network, and the location of the best resources away from strong parts of the network)
Demand reduction by economic measures and efficiency increases could be discussed.

B2
The student should be able to explain that the rise in the atmospheric CO2 is consistent with its
emissions due to fossil fuel use since the industrial revolution. The link between economic
development and energy use could be illustrated by the Human Development Index (or similar
arguments). The link between climate change and CO2 concentrations could be explained by the
fact that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the ground and thus stores heat in the
atmosphere.
In the context of Kyoto, the student could discuss the different obligations of developed and
developing nations, as well as the fact that some countries, such as the US have not ratified the
treaty for several reasons.
The issue of carbon trading could be discussed critically, e.g. as a way to turn emissions into a
commodity where the ultimate aim of reducing it has become secondary.
Are there steps, developed countries could do to substantially reduce their own emissions, as well as
steps to help developing nations to limit their emissions? (Demand reductions; efficiency increase;
development aid and cooperation,…)

You might also like