Sustainable Energy

1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.
811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Prof. Michael W. Golay

Nuclear Engineering Dept.
RESOURCE EVALUATION
AND DEP
EPLETI
LETION
ON ANALY
LYSES
SES
1
WAYS OF ESTIMATING ENERGY
RESOURCES
• Monte Carlo
• “Hubbert” Method Extrapolation
• Expert Opinion (Delphi)
2
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

U3O8 Concentration
Share (Percent) Tons U3O8
New Mexico .49 0.25 Total
Wyoming .36 0.20 315,000
Utah .03 0.32 Š $10/lb
Colorado .03 0.28
Texas .06 0.28
Other .03 0.28
Class 2 – Vein Deposits 7,100
7 ,100
Class 3 – Lignite Deposits 0.01-0.05 1,200
Class 4 – Phosphate Rock 0.015
Class 5 – Phosphate Rock Leached 0.010 54,600
Zone (Fla.)
Class 6 – Chattanooga Shale 0.006 2,557,300
Class 7 – Copper Leach Solution 0.0012 30,000
Operations
Class 8 – Conway Granite 0.0012-Uranium 1x106
0.0050-Thorium 4x106
Class 9 – Sea Water 0.33x10-6 4x109
5
ESTIMATES OF URANIUM AVAILABILITY FROM
GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS AND OCEANS IN
THE U.S.
4000
1800
Millions of Tons U3O8
200
S 30
2
S 10
0
Conventional Shale Shale Granite Shale Granite Seawater
60-80 ppm 25-60 ppm 10-20 ppm 10-25 ppm 4-10 ppm 0.003 ppm
700-2100 ppm
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
6
DECLINE IN GRADE OF MINED
COPPER ORES SINCE 1925
2.5
% Copper in ORE
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965
7
RECOVERY BY IN-SITU
COMBUSTION
8
MONTE CARLO ESTIMATION
Yield from
Region Y
n
Y = ΣYj
j=1
(Eq. 1) Y
Yield from Yield from Yield from

Zone 1, y1 Zone 2, y3 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 yimax yimin yi yimax
yi
Prob. (y i < Yi < y i + δy i ) = fYi (y i )dy i (i i )
(Eq. 2) Prob. Y < y = F y
Y i i
( )= ∫ ( )
fY y′i dy′i
i
yi
min
(Eq. 3)
[
Consider Yi to be a random variable within y i min , y i max ]
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
[ 1 1 ]
Z1 = y1 , y 2 , L , y n to calculate a value of Z (Eq. 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
K K K ]
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
Z and .
G⎛⎜ Z⎞⎟ as one
⎝ ⎠
13
M. KING HUBBERT’S 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 HUBBERT’S 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
320 320
300 Proved Reserves 300
280 280
260 260
240 240
220 220
200 200
180 180
160 160
(As of Dec. 31)
40 40
35 35
Additions
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
5 5
10 10
15 15
20 Production 20
25 25
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
Hubbert’s assumed “logistical’ relationships
r
Rate of Production Ý
4
Q P (X)
d [Q P (X)] ⎡ Q P (X)⎤ K
ÝP =
Q = rQ P (X)⎢1− ⎥,
dt ⎣ K ⎦
Cumulative Production
KQ Po (X)
Q P (X) = Q P (X)
Q P o (X) − (Q Po (X) − K )e−rX K 1
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
K
Q P (−∞) = 0 Q P (0) = = Q PO P (∞) = K
2
Ý dQ P (X) dQ P (X) rK
Q(x) ≡ = = .
dt dX 4
max X=
X =0
X ⎛ X ′ ⎞2
K −1 2⎜ ⎟ 81
Q P (X) ≈ ∫ e ⎝ σ ⎠ d X′, where
σ= .
−∞
2πσ πr
Let : t - t o ≡ X.
22
EQUATIONS
Conservation of Resource:
Qd (t ) = Q r (t ) + Q p (t ) (Eq. 4)
Rate Conservation:
Ý (t ) = Q
Q Ý (t ) + Q
Ý (t ) (Eq. 5)
d r p
Approximate Results:
t (QÝ = 0)− t(Q Ý = 0) = 2 τ (Eq. 6)
d r
(
⎧⎪ t − t
τ ≈⎨ r p
) (Eq. 7)
(
⎩⎪ t d − t r)
or
1
(
t r ≈ td + t p
2 ) (Eq. 8)
Qp ()
≈ 2Qd t d
ultimate
(Eq. 9)
23
EQUATIONS, Continued
Ýd (t ) and Q
If we assume Gaussian distributions for Qr (t ), Q Ýp (t)
with each having the same standard deviation, σ, obtain
Qr ⎡ 1 ⎛t − t ⎞ 2⎤
o r
Q r (t ) = exp ⎢− ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (Eq. 10)
2πσ 2 ⎝ σ ⎠ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦
Qd ⎡ 1 ⎛t − t ⎞ 2⎤
Ý (t ) =
Q o
exp ⎢ − d
⎜ σ ⎟ ⎥ (Eq. 11)
(Eq.
d
2πσ 2 ⎝ ⎠ ⎥
⎣⎢ ⎦
Qp ⎡ 1 ⎛t − t ⎞ 2⎤ ,
Ý (t ) = p
Q o
exp ⎢ − ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (Eq. 12)
⎢ 2⎝ σ ⎠ ⎥
p
2πσ
⎣ ⎦
Then, when Qr is at a maximum t = tr and Q Ý =0
r
ÝÝ ()
Qr t r =
−1xQ r
o
⇒σ = Ý 2 ()
−1xQ r t r
(Eq. 13)
σ 2 Ý
()
Qr t r , or
24
EQUATIONS, Continued
For the normal distribution
1 − 1 z2
f (z) = e 2
2π
t − to
f (1) = 0.67, z ≡ =1
σ
⇒ σ ≅ 25 yr. for U.S. petroleum and natural gas
z
F(z) = ∫ f (z′ )dz′, Cumulative distribution function
−∞
F(3) = 0.99, Approximately the state of full depletion

⇒ Time of exploitation ≅ σ = 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

Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Fall 2010
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.
Energy Transmission and Storage
Sustainable Energy
9/23/2010
text readings in Chapter 16

Sections 16.1-16.3, 16.6-16.7
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

Sustainable Energy – Chapter 16
Storage, Transportation, and Distribution of Energy
16.1 Overview of Energy Supply Infrastructure Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648

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

• Demand and scale requirements
• Technology options
• Performance factors and metrics
• Economic considerations and status
• Storage for Hybrid Electric Vehicles
• Environmental and sustainability issues
4
Energy Sources and Conversion Processes
Biomass Photosynthesis
Sources
fuels Solar C Photovoltaics
lim
ate
Ocean Wind, hydro,
thermal Direct waves tidal
thermal
Energy Forms
Chemical
Mechanical
Heat Electricity
work
Nuclear
Fission &
Geothermal
fusion To end uses:
Sources
residential, industrial,
transportation
Fossil fuels: Fuel cells
gas, oil coal
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. 5

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 6
Variations in Energy Demand
45
40
35
30 Diurnal
variations
25
GW
for UK
20 electricity
Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Mon Tues
demand in
15
the last
10 week of
August 2010
5
Source: NationalGrid 7
Options to Manage Supply & Demand
• Excess capacity plus dispatch system
• Demand management
• Energy storage
8
Variations in Energy Demand
Total USA
1050 Generating
Capacity
900
750
Peak hour
600 Demand for
GW Each month
450 of 2008
300
150 Annual
Average
0 Demand
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Source: EIA 2008 9

Variations in Energy Supply
Example: Nevada Solar One hourly net electricity output
Image removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see slide 36 in Cohen, Gilbert.
"Solargenix Energy: The Natural Power for Good." Las Vegas, NV: IEEE, May 16, 2006.
10
Interruptions in Energy Supply
• Cost to USA from poor power quality $119 to $188

billion/year (EPRI)
• Global market for Uninterruptable Power Supply,
UPS systems, is $7 billion/year
Baxter, Richard. Energy Storage: A Nontechnical Guide. Tulsa, OK: PennWell, 2006. ISBN: 9781593700270.
11
Motivation for storage
• Variations in Energy Demand
• Variations in Energy Supply
• Interruptions in Energy Supply
• Transmission Congestion
• Demand for Portable Energy
• Efficiency of Energy Systems
• Energy Recovery 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
e- e-
Load
PbO2 Carbon
Pb Pb2+ + 2 e-
H+ Binder
Acid
Pb metal Current
Current Pb2+ collector
collector
SO42- Pb4+ + 2 e- Pb2+ +
_
Anode Electrolyte 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.
Pentadyne GTX Flywheel 19

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
American Superconductor 21
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 Characteristic
Energy Energy Density Application
Mode Type kJ/kg Sector
Pumped Potential 1 (100m head) Electric

Hydropower
Compressed Air Potential 15,000 in kJ/m3 Electric

Energy Storage
Kinetic
Flywheels Kinchi 30-360 Transport
Thermal Enthalpy Water (100-40oC) – 250

(sensible + Rock (250-50oC) – 180 Buildings
latent) Salt (latent) – 300
Fossil Fuels Reaction Oil – 42,000 Transport, Electric,

Enthalpy Coal – 32,000 Industrial,
Buildings
Biomass Reaction Drywood – 15,000 Transport, Electric,

Enthalpy Industrial, Building
Batteries Electrochemical Lead acid – 60-180

Nickel Metal hydride – Transport,
370 Buildings
Li-ion – 400-600
Li-pdgmer ~ 1,400
Superconducting
Magnetic Energy Electromagnetic 100 – 10,000 Electric
Storage (SMES)
Supercapacitors Electrostatic 18 – 36 Transport

25
Energy Storage Technology Characteristics
Pumped CAES (a) Flywheels Thermal Batteries Supercapacitors SMES(b)

Hydro
Energy Range 1.8 X 106– 180,000– 1–18,000 MJ 1–100 1800– 1–10 MJ 1800–
36 X 10 6 MJ 18 X 10 6 MJ MJ 180,000 MJ 5.4 X 106 MJ
Power Range 100–1000 100–100 1–10 MWe 0.1 to 10 0.1 to 10 0.1-10 MWe 10–1000
MWe MWe MWe MWe MWe
Overall Cycle 64–80% 60–70% ~90% ~80–90% ~75% ~90% ~95%
Efficiency
Charge/Discharge Hours Hours Minutes Hours Hours Seconds Minutes to
Time Hours
Cycle Life ?10,000 ?10,000 ?10,000 >10,000 ?2,000 >100,000 ?10,000
Footprint/Unit Large if Moderate if Small Moderate Small Small Large
Size above under
ground ground
Siting Ease Difficult Difficult to N/A Easy N/A N/A Unknown
moderate
Maturity Mature Early stage Under Mature Lead acid Available Early R&D
of development mature, stage,
development others under under
development development
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - 26

Storage
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
Typical Size
System Range MWe $/kWe $/kWh
Pumped hydropower 100-1000 600-1000 10-15
Batteries
Lead acid 0.5–100 100-200 150-300
Nickel metal 0.5-50 200-400 300
hydride 0.5-50 200-400
Li-ion 500
Mechanical 1-10 200-500 100-800

flywheels
Compressed air 50-1,000 500-1,000 10-15

energy storage
(CAES)
Superconducting
magnetic energy 10-1,000 300-1,000 300-3,000
storage (SMES)
Supercapacitors 1-10 300 3,600 28

Storage Challenges for Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV)
Photo by IFCAR on Wikimedia Commons.
Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - 29

Storage
Energy Storage for an HEV
• Batteries
– Lead-acid
– Lithium-ion
– Nickel-metal hydride
• Ultracapacitors
• Flywheels
31
Energy Storage in HEV’s:
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
Graph removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 16.7 • trains
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
36
expensive to liquefy in first place.
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
operations, rail. 39
Assessing Storage/Transmission Issues
for New Energy Options: Stranded Gas
– Efficiency:
ηgas-to-LNG(1-kshipdship)(1-kpipedpipe)ηgas-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)ηbiomass-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
 What’s underway @ MIT
Global Cumulative Wind Power Capacity (MW)
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
0 50,000 100,000 150,000
Source: EWEA, 2009; Wind Power Monthly, 2010
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 Total Cumulative
20,000
15,000
Capacity
10,000
5,000
0
US China Germany Spain India Rest of
world
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000 New Capacity Adds
2,000
1,000
0
China US France Spain Germany India Rest of
world
Source: Wind Power Monthly, January 2010
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 Please see Heimpel, L. G. "How To Convert an Old Auto
sells generators to retro-fit onto existing wind Generator into a Wind-Driven Battery Charger." Popular Science
123 (August 1933): 68, 76. (View on Google Books.)
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.
Brief History – Modern Era
Key attributes of this period:
• Scale increase
• Commercialization
• Competitiveness
• Grid integration
Photo by Stig Nygaard on Flickr.
Catalyst for progress: OPEC Crisis (1970s)
• 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
Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.
Synoptic scale: weather systems
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) A
flowing through the area of interest (flux) v
– Kinetic Energy definition:
• KE = ½ * m * v 2
– Power is KE per unit time:
 * v2
• P=½* m
– Fluid mechanics gives mass flow rate
(density * volume flux):
 dm
• m  = ρ* A * v
dt
– Thus: • Power ~ cube of velocity
• P = ½ * ρ * A * v3 • Power ~ air density
• Power ~ rotor swept area A= πr 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 = ½ * ρ * 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)
Power Curve of 1500 kW Turbine Wind Frequency Distribution

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
Nameplate 0.02
Capacity 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
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 Image removed due to copyright restrictions.
Please see Fig. 121 in Fraenkel, P. L. Water
3. Calculate rotor diameter (accounting Lifting Devices. FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 43. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
for efficiency losses) Organization, 1986. ISBN: 9789251025154.
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
Wind Turbine Blades
• Blade tip speed:
• 2-Blade Systems and
Teetered Hubs:
Please see Rotor aerodynamics, No. of rotor blades, and Power

• Pitch control of wind turbines, Danish Wind Industry Association.
control:
http://wiki.windpower.org/index.php/Whence_wind%3F
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?
Delta-Generation Capacity [MW] Annual Change in Wind Generation Capacity for US
2400
PTC Expirations 1900
1400
900
400
-100
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
US Denmark
1Wiser,
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].
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
What’s underway at MIT…
MIT Project Full Breeze
• 3 and 6+ months of data at
two sites on MIT’s Briggs Field
• Complemented with statistical
analysis using Measure-
Correlate-Predict method
Met station 2
Analysis Method MCP CFD MCP CFD MCP CFD
Height [m] 20 20 26 26 34 34
Mean Wind Speed [m/s] 3.4 2.9 n/a 3.0 4.0 3.2
Power Density [W/m^2] 46.5 51.7 n/a 60.4 74.6 70.9
Annual Energy Output
1,017 1,185 n/a 1,384 1,791 1,609
[kW-hr]
• Research project using Annual Production CFD
[kW-hr]
n/a 1,136 n/a 1,328 n/a 1,558
Computational Fluid Capacity Factor 5% 6% n/a 7% 9% 8%

Operational Time 38% 28% n/a 30% 51% 33%
Dynamics techniques Met station 1
for urban wind Analysis Method

Height [m]
MCP
20
CFD
20
MCP
26
CFD
26
MCP
34
CFD
34
applications Mean Wind Speed [m/s] 3.3 2.7 3.7 2.9 n/a 3.1
Power Density [W/m^2] 39.4 41.9 55.6 50.2 n/a 60.5
• Published paper at Annual Energy Output
817 974 1,259 1,193 n/a 1,430
[kW-hr]
AWEA Windpower Annual Production
n/a 931 n/a 1,135 n/a 1,377
2010 in Texas CFD [kW-hr]
Capacity Factor 4% 5% 6% 6% n/a 7%
Operational Time 35% 26% 45% 29% n/a 32%
Spatial Analysis of Wind Resource at MIT
3D simulations of wind resource structure at MIT
(a) Wind speed (c) Turbulence intensity
(b) (d)
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?
2 SE T-4 Systems Analysis

I NTRODUCTION
Many issues for sustainability
requiring balance
We need to quantify to
proceed
Deal with complexity and
Economics Environment
uncertainty
This is the goal “Systems
Society
Analysis”
End result often involves very,
very large computer codes
How do we make such
computer models?

Scoping study
S COPING STUDY CHARACTERISTICS
We’ll see more of this in a fuel costs example next week.

Basic guidelines for a scoping study:
Highly simplified
Mostly linear analysis - add separate costs

Very few feedback effects
Advantages
Relatively simple to understand
Good overall picture
Identification 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 financial 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 firms.
Environmental groups.
Industrial groups.
Consideration of impact of regulation is part of any SA.

There often is an uncertain political aspect to a regulation.

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.

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 financial analysis

Life Cycle Analysis
Systems Analysis Life Cycle Analysis
L IFE C YCLE A NALYSIS (LCA) ELEMENTS
Emissions
Energy
Production of Manufacturing Use of Disposal

Raw Materials Process Product
Wastes Recycle Wastes

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

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

MacDonald’s
Styrofoam or paper?
Trees (natural?) Oil (bad?)
Chemicals (worse)
Paper (good ?)
Styrofoam (??)
Oil
Chlorine or
Peroxide
Benzene + C2H4 + etc.
Pulp Acid or Alkali
CFCs
CO2 Styrene
Paper Hard to recycle
PCBs + Pentane
Dioxins
Plastic coating Polystyrene foam
Water McD
Wastewater Recycle
Landfill Trash
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
Resources & Decommissioning Hydrogen
in
Natural gas
production & distribution
Fossil fuel
energy in SMR plant
Electricity
operation Emissions
generation
air, water,
wastes
System Boundary

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 difficult
Interest rates
Inflation rates
Cost of fuel

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 $437
Enrichment $117
Fabrication $825
Storage and Disposal $351
Total $2040

#$%&'(&)&*&+,&'-.%/&*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&
!"
E QUATIONS FOR THE COST OF ORE ARE NON - LINEAR
Known reserves and cost of ore are inter-related

� � ��
10N(t)MF t
Core (t) = Ci exp k1
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

C OST OF ORE FROM SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
1,000 C[$/kg]
N[#]
800 R[107 kg] Note the
singular
600 response
around 40
400 years. What
causes this?
200 What does a
plot of R vs C
0 look like?
0 10 20 30 40
Year

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

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

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

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

D ETERMINING R ISK
How do we determine risk?

This is the realm of risk analysis
Single component failures relatively easy
Qualification data available
History of real world experience
Can predict the mean time between failure
Single small failures often harmless
Single gigantic failures very rare

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

W HAT TO DO ?
Recommendations vary by group

Builders tend to underestimate risks to keep the cost down
Example: Don’t worry – the Big Dig is safe
Others tend to overestimate the risks to avoid or delay
construction
Example: Nuclear is unsafe – don’t build it.
Example: Wind kill birds – don’t 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

#$%&''()*+,*-./%/0,12'/
345%64/)%+-)7%,88/9*%94$)*+(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.$&)%8&,%9-25+/()&/).,%5*%*&.(*+&>;&Ʃ'
=5.$&)%8&,%9-25+/()&/).,%5*%*&+/4%&>;&Ʃ+
?(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%&'Ʃ-
'&6&.#05&6&-*-89&+/4<%.&*=&0$8+7%,
>8-$%48-10899?
"!a ! "! " # %$ ! "! " %"!a%$
@*9A%&=*.&#05
"!
"!a !
! % %$
'*-%&-$8-&.Ʃ-&B&C&=*.&0*4:9%-1*+
!"
#$%&'%(&)*+,
-&+./.012&1234/%5,&$*06+&7*2&,$%&5%(&8*+,
$%!
a ! & !"# " ' %& ! & !"# "
& !"# %&
! $ %(
'*,%&,$1,&Ʃ,&156&Ʃ)&12%&2%01,%6
91:%&Ʃ,&0123%2&; 7%(%2&(*2:%2+&5%%6%6<&0%16+&
,*&0*(%2&8*+,+
=4,&,$%>&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>+
!"
"#$%&'(#)'Ʃ*
+,-)%.%,/'0,-&1$%2'34)$54)%'4,$'&46#)
%( ! %( !"#$ " %( %"&'#
746#)'-#2/2'0,-)%42%'42'Ʃ/'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(-)
!"
#$%&'$()#*+'),+-)''
8
8
Total Capital Cost
6.5
Ccapny
( ) 5
3.5
2 2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 y 0.5
delta t (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
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
1
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. Demand Variations for Electricity
III. Electricity Supply Availability
IV. Locational-Based Electricity Markets
Locational-Based
2
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
3
I. Demand Variations
4
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)
5
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)
6
HOURLY ELECTRICITY DEMAND IN NEW
ENGLAND DURING TYPICAL SUMMER AND
WINDER MONDAYS AND SUNDAYS
25000
20000
15000
(MW )
Demand (MW
Sunday-Summer
Sunday-Winter
Monday-Winter
Monday-Summer
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
7
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
9
SIMPLE DEMAND
CALCULATION
• Problem
� What is the amount of generation capacity needed to supply
20 GW of peak load?
� If the system’s 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 (Con’t)
• 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 = λ
� Expected repair rate = 1/MTTR = µ
Unit Unit
λ
Up Down
µ
• 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
GENERATION UNIT AVAILABILITY DATA
(2005-2009)
MW Trb/Gen # of Unit- MW Trb/Gen # of Unit-
rvice: http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=4|43
Unit Type Nameplate Units Years Unit Type Nameplate Units Years
NUCLEAR All Sizes 113 513.25
FOSSIL All Sizes 1,465 6774.33
All Types 400-799 24 85.17
All Fuel Types 1-99 353 1520.42
800-999 38 175.08
100-199 388 1780.25
1000 Plus 51 253.00
200-299 172 823.33
300-399 126 599.75

PWR All Sizes 66 320.58
400-599 225 1062.00

400-799 9 40.50
600-799 140 678.58

800-999 23 112.08
800-999 49 245.00
1000 Plus 34 168.00
1000 Plus 13 65.00
BWR All Sizes 33 161.00
Coal All Sizes 917 4310.58

400-799 5 23.00
Primary 1-99 165 730.75

800-999 11 53.00
100-199 250 1172.25

1000 Plus 17 85.00
Seervice:
200-299 119 577.42
CANDU All Sizes 13 25.17
300-399 75 353.33
400-599 151 704.17 JET All Sizes 378 1753.25
North American Reliability Council, Generation Availability Data S

600-799 113 547.67 ENGINE** 1-19 50 224.67
800-999 33 165.00 20 Plus 328 1528.58
1000 Plus 12 60.00

GAS All Sizes 999 4608.58
Oil All Sizes 128 491.42 TURBINE** 1-19 187 838.17
Primary 1-99 37 158.75 20-49 254 1201.92
100-199 34 120.58 50 Plus 558 2568.50
200-299 10 35.00
COMB. CYCLE
300-399 14 64.83 (BLOCK
400-599 15 51.67 REPORTED
UNITS ONLY All Sizes 179 719.83
600-799 9 38.42
800-999 8 17.17 HYDRO All Sizes 1,220 5317.33
1-29 541 2319.25
Gas All Sizes 411 1734.75

30 Plus 679 2998.08
Primary 1-99 127 497.83

100-199 114 484.83 PUMPED
200-299 44 194.17 STORAGE All Sizes 115 543.67
300-399 42 181.58
MULTI-BOILER/
400-599 62 280.08
MULTI-TURBINE All Sizes 41 137.67
600-799 13 55.17
800-999 9 41.08 GEOTHERMAL All Sizes **** ****
Lignite Primary All Sizes 23 95.25 DIESEL** All Sizes 213 820.00
**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.
21
MODELING AVAILABLE
GENERATION
Using Monte Carlo simulation

Available Capacity (MW)
determine for each unit
whether it is available during
and sum up available capacity
Indicates
“Blue Unit”
for each
for each trial
trial
is available
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 22 24 26 28
Values in Thousands
5% 90% 5%
22.99 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
I
σ
Real Power = E ⋅ I 1
cosσ
4 3
2 4
power factor
Reactive Power = E ⋅ I sin σ
• Grid Stability Requires Spatially Uniform E

• Change σ 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 (Con’t)
• 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

� 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
• Prices May Increase Dramatically if a Constraint is Binding
� 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 $16.89
Ontario
New
$19.23
England
$43.33 $40.79
$19.13
$37.48
PJM NYC Long Island

$20.20 $38.57 $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
Fai f
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 End Users

•
• Active Power •
• Clean Energy Group
• APC-MGE • Fidelity Investments
• Cummins • First Solar
• Emerson / Liebert • Goldman Sachs
• Power One • Harvard Medical School
• Rolls Royce Fuel Cell • Jones Day
• S&C Electric Company • JP Morgan Chase
• Siemens • Merck & Co.
• Still River Systems • MIT
• SustainX
Consultants/Engineers
Utilities • CH2M HILL Industrial Design &
• First Energy Construction
• Progress Energy • EPRI PEAC
• Salt River Project • HDR
• NorthEast Utilities • EYP Mission Critical Facilities
• Detroit Edison • 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 Nameplate Rating

Generators Megawatts
Naturall G
Gas 5,467 454,611
Coal 1,445 337,300
Nuclear 104 106 147
106,147
Hydroelectric 3,996 77,731
Petroleum 3,768 63,655
Renewable 2,576 41,384
Pumped Storage 151 20,355
Other 49 1042
Total 17,658 1,104,486
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p2.html
US Generation, Change 2006-2008
Energy Source Number of Nameplate Rating

Generators Megawatts
Naturall G
Gas -3 +11,666
Coal -48 +1,470
Nuclear 0 +562
Hydroelectric +8 +312
Petroleum 24 -663
Renewable +753 +14,914
Pumped Storage +1 +786
Other -103
103 -2,497
2 497
Total +734 +28,809
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.
Facility Type In Service
Distribution
System Transmission ~7,000
Substations
4160 to 69 kV
Distribution >100,000
Substations
Distribution Circuit >2,500,000
Miles
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 R + jXL IR
ES -jXC ER
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 2008–2017 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
3.E+9
watt - Hours
2.E+9
Megaw
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 California “deregulates”
Apr 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation.
May 2000 Significant energy price rises.
Jun 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area
Aug 2000 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 1 5 milli
ffectt 1.5 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: What’s 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
48000
Predictable,
correlated with
43000
calendar weather
calendar,
Load
38000
33000
28000
0
0
0
0
0
0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
:0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
07
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
09
10
Time
0
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
• Consumer’s 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
threatt 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
• MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study

• “Smart Grid”
• New Challenges/Opportunities:
• Challenge: more wind and solar, remote and distributed
• Opportunity: new remote sensing & automation technologies

• Challenge: electrification of transportation systems
• Opportunity: technologies that can make demand more
responsive to system conditions
• Challenge: data communications, cyber‐security, & privacy
2
OUTLINE


3
MIT “FUTURE OF…” STUDIES
• MIT faculty have, over the last several

years, conducted several in‐depth
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.
4
“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 team’s!
6
RESEARCH TEAM
Co‐Directors:
• Richard Schmalensee • John G. Kassakian
Howard W Johnson Prof. of Economics and Management Professor
Former Dean, Sloan School of Management Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
Faculty/Staff:
• Khurram Afridi • James L. Kirtley
Visiting Associate Professor
Professor
Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
• Gary DesGroseilliers • Harvey Michaels
Executive Director
Energy Efficiency Research Director/Lecturer
MIT Future of the Electric Grid Study
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
• Jerrold M. Grochow • Ignacio Perez‐Arriaga
Former Vice President
Visiting Professor
Information Services and Technology, MIT

Engineering Systems Division
• Timothy D. Heidel • David J. Perreault

Postdoctoral Associate / Research Director
Associate Professor
MIT Energy Initiative
• William Hogan • Nancy L. Rose
Raymond Plank Professor of Global Energy Policy Professor
HEPG Research Director Department of Economics
Mossavar‐Rahmani Center for Business and Government

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
• Gerald L. Wilson
Professor Emeritus
• Henry D. Jacoby Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
William F. Pounds Professor of Management Emeritus Former Dean, School of Engineering
Professor of Applied Economics
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research
Students:
Nabi Abudaldah, Minjie Chen, Samantha Gunter, P. Jordan Kwok, Vivek A. Sakhrani,
Jiankang Wang, Andrew Whitaker, Xiang Ling Yap
7
OUTLINE


8
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.
“We’ll 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 in‐home 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


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: investor‐owned firms (84% of generation), plus cooperatives and

systems owned by city, state, and federal governments
• Transmission/Distribution: 3,200 government owned, cooperative, and

(state‐regulated) investor‐owned entities (242 investor‐owned, 65% of sales)
• Wholesale market deregulation began in 1990s, halted by the California

meltdown of 2000‐01:
– Organized (ISO/RTO) wholesale markets serve about 2/3 of load, about 42% of
generation nationally by investor‐owned 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


21
CHALLENGE: RENEWABLE GENERATION
• 29 states & the District of Columbia have “renewable portfolio standards,”

requiring non‐hydro renewable (NHR) generation.
• A national standard is possible, more state standards are likely, so expect
requirements for more grid‐scale and distributed NHR generation, mainly
intermittent wind & solar.
Maps of U.S. Wind Resource (50m) and Annual Direct Normal Solar Radiation Graphs removed due to copyright restrictions.
(Two-Axis Tracking Concentrator) 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 long-

distance transmission.
 More grid-scale renewable generation is likely to require system
22 operation changes (due to intermittency and imperfect predictability)
CHALLENGE: RENEWABLE GENERATION
• Long‐distance transmission for remote grid‐scale 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, case‐be‐case processes)
• Distributed renewables (e.g., rooftop solar) pose different
technical and (harder) policy challenges
– May need to configure distribution systems for two‐way power flow & to
maintain worker safety
– Must provide incentives for the necessary investment – even though it
23 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 2‐4 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
δ1
V1
δ2
V2
δ1 δ2
V1 V2
Signal 1 Signal 2
Reference Reference
time = 0 time = 0
Common reference signal at remote locations possible due to GPS synchronization

26
Source: http://www.naspi.org/pmu/pmu.stm
Image by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, operated by Adapted from "What is Phasor Technology?"
Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy. 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
Relative phase angle between two locations
Example: 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:
Graphs removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 1-6 in
PMUs could be used to calibrate
"Real-Time Application of Synchrophasors for Improving Reliability."
and/or improve system models
NERC, November 2010.
(used for operations, planning
and reliability studies)
28
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 plug‐in 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 Current Power Freq. Standard

Phase
(VAC) (Amps) (kVA) (Hz) Outlet
Level 1 120 12 1.44 60 Single NEMA 5‐15R

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: Pack size:

5.9 kWh 9.3 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)
Largest ongoing/proposed AMI projects
(based on publicly available data)
Millions of meters
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 self‐interest 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
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
2 SE T-6 Electrical Systems

AC
“The war of the currents”
Pros and Cons

One kills elephants
One has simpler infrastructure
Why do we have AC and not Tesla
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 the generator voltage
Find the power delivered by the generator
Find the power dissipated by the transmission line
Find the ratio PTrans /PLoad

AC Simple circuit models
A simple electric circuit
VL
The current I = RL
The power to the load
2 VL2
PL = I RL = RL
Equating currents (from
RT Kirchhoff’s Laws), the
transmission line power
+ VT − + 2 RT VL2
I PT = I RT = RL
+ The power ratio is then the
VG VL RL ratio of resistances: PPTL = RRTL
−
Generator power � �
−
2
RT VL
PG = PL + PT = 1 + RL RL
Generator voltage
� �
VG = PIG = 1 + RRTL VL

Efficiency requires most power is dissipated in
the load
Example for Al and household V
For PL = 1.2 GW and VL = 120V

If RT /RL � 1, then Then RL = PL /VL2 = 1.2 × 10−5 Ω
PT � PL
For transmission assume L = 50 km (a
Most of the voltage short distance)
appears across the load.

An Aluminum cable with A = 5 cm2
So, we have very small (to minimize sag, Cu not used.)
transmission losses.
Resistivity of Al, η = 2.8 × 10−8 Ω-m
∴ RT = ηL/A = 2.8Ω � RL
Conclusion: not so good!

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

An Ideal Transformer
I1 I2
+ +
V1 V2
− −
n1 n2
N =n2 /n1 = turns ratio
V2 =NV1
I2 =I1 /N
Physical process is conservation of

magnetic flux/energy

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 flux/energy Top right: Photo by brewbooks on Flickr.

AC Analysis
AC transmission reduces losses
RT
I1
I0 + V − IL
T
+ +
VG V1 V2 RL
− −
N1 N2
As before, PL = 1.2 GW, VL = 120 V , RL = 1.2 × 10−5 Ω

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

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

AC Analysis
From the circuit: For N2 � 1 a huge reduction in

transmission losses
PL =VL IL = RL IL2 Practical numbers:
PT =VT I1 = RT I12 V0 = 12kV , V1 = 240kV (rms)
This implies that N1 = V1 /V0 = 20

Assume small voltage drop across the
From the transformer
transmission line. Then V2 ≈ V1
relation, IL = N2 I1 , it
follows Second turn ratio becomes
N2 = V2 /VL = 2000
PT 1 RT Our transmission loss formula gives
= 2
PL N2 RL PT /PL ≈ 6%

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

AC Reactive power
Resistors, inductors and capacitors, oh my!
There are three basic circuit elements having different Ohm’s laws.
Element Resistor Inductor Capacitor
Symbol R L C
dI dV
Ohm’s Law V = RI V = L dt dt = I /C
I = sin ωt V = R sin ωt V = L cos ωt V = − C1 cos ωt
Phase shift 0 π/2 −π/2

−j
Impedance R jωL ωC
Z [Ω] = V /I

AC Reactive power
Phase lags increase reactive power
2πt
Current, I = Im sin( Tperiod )
2πt
Voltage, V = Vm sin( Tperiod )
0.5
I /Im , V /Vm
−0.5
−1
0 1 2 3 4
t/Tperiod

AC Reactive power
2πt
Current, I = Im sin( Tperiod )
2πt
Power,
1
2πt
P =I · V = Im Vm sin2 ( )
0.5 Tperiod
„ «
I /Im , V /Vm
1 2πt
0 = Im Vm 1 − cos(2 )
2 Tperiod
−0.5
−1
0 1 2 3 4
t/Tperiod

AC Reactive power
2πt
Current, I = Im sin( Tperiod + φ)
2πt
Power,
1 φ
2πt 2πt
P = I · V = Im Vm sin( ) sin( + φ)
0.5 Tperiod Tperiod
„ «
I /Im , V /Vm
1 2πt
0 = Im Vm cos(φ) − cos(2 + φ)
2 Tperiod
−0.5 cos(φ) is known as the power factor
−1
0 1 2 3 4
t/Tperiod

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

AC Reactive power
Phase shifts are introduced by inductance

A motor will have an inductance, L.
I
V cos(ωt) R

AC Reactive power

ωL
It will introduce a phase shift given by tan φ = R
I
V cos(ωt) R

AC Reactive power

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

AC Reactive power

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

AC Reactive power
How to minimize the VA requirement?
To minimize the VA requirements on the generator we want φ → 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.

AC Reactive power
Peak power from inductance
The power dissipated in the load:
�PL � = RI 2
RV 2
=
2 2
ω L + R2
The peak power delivered by the generator
� �
V2 R
Ppeak = VI (1 + cos φ) = 1+
(ω 2 L2 + R 2 )1/2 (ω 2 L2 + R 2 )1/2
Using the expression for �PL �, we get:

� �1/2
Ppeak ω 2 L2 + R 2 +R
= ≥1
2 �PL � 2R

AC Reactive power
Capacitance can balance out reactive power

Equivalent cir
Recall from our table that the phase

lags are opposite for inductance and
capacitance
ωL −1
tan φL = R , tan φC = ωC
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 + ω 2 L2
Long answer follows.
Goal: Find C so there is no re
Analysis
I – V relation for a capacitor
dV
Iˆ1(t ) = C G
dt
I – V relation for the load
ˆ dIˆ2
VG = RI 2 + L
dt
Conservation of current
Iˆ(t ) = Iˆ1(t ) + Iˆ2 (t )
31
Solution
Assume VG = V cos(Xt) (all voltages now rms)
Current in the capacitor branch
Iˆ1(t ) = XCV sin(Xt)
Current in the load branch (from before)
V
Iˆ2 (t ) = cos(Xt G)
2 2 1/ 2
(R 2
+X L )
32
The total current
The total current flowing from the generator
Iˆ(t ) = Iˆ1(t ) + Iˆ2(t )

¯
¡ cos(Xt G)
=V ¡ 1/ 2 XC sin(Xt)°°
¡ (R 2 + X 2L2 ) °
¢ ±
£¦ ¯ ²¦
¦¦ cos(Xt)cos G ¡ sin G ° sin(Xt)¦¦
=V ¤ + XC »
¦¦(R 2 + X 2L2 )1/ 2 ¡¡ (R 2 + X 2L2 )1/ 2 °
° ¦¦
¦¥ ¢ ± ¦
¼
33
The value of C
Choose C for zero reactive power
Set sin(t) coefficient to zero
sin G
XC =
2 2 1/ 2
(R 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

cos G
= 2V 2
(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 offline
or a transmission line going down.

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?
Today’s 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
5
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 today’s 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
Pi = = = $90.91
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
Pn
PV (Pn ) = n
(1 + iR )
However, because of inflation the future cost of the
equipment is higher than today’s 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
n
1 + iI ¬
PV = Pi
1 + i
R®
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 ĺ 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 Present
Dollars 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
n
Tc -1 ¬
Pover 1 + iI
PVCAP =
TC

n=0 1 + i

R®
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

TC +TP -1
PVOM =
n=TC
(n )
PVOM
n
TC +TP 1 1 + iI¬

= POM 1 + i

n =TC R®
1 BTP ¬
= POM B TC
= $750M
1 B ®
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
fcPeT (0.85)(106 kWe ) (8760hr )
Wth = = = 2.26 × 1010 kWhr
I (0.33)
Fuel burn rate B = 1.08 × 10 kWhr /kg
6
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
1 BTP ¬
= $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
(COE )(We ) (COE ) fcPeT

PR = = = ($74.6M ) ×COE
100 100
The PV of the total revenue

1 BTP ¬ 1 BTP ¬
PVR = PR B
TC
= $(74.6M ) (COE ) BTC
1 B ® 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 Pover 1 1 BTC ¬ ¯

COE = ¡

+ POM + PF °
¡ T T °
fcPeT ¢ TC B 1 B ®
C P
±
= 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
B
C cap C ref Pref ¬
=
Pe Pref Pe ®
Typically B x 1/ 3
28
Why?
Consider a spherical tank
2
Cost v Material v Surface area: C r 4QR
3
Power v Volume: P r (4 / 3)QR
COE scaling: C / P r 1 / R r 1 / P 1/ 3
Conclusion:
1B
C cap P ¬
= e
C ref 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
p ¬ 1B
N ref ¬
C 1 = C ref = C ref
p
ref ® N ®
31
Example – cont.
Cost of the nth unit
1B
N ref ¬
C n = C 1n C = C ref n C
N ®
Total capital cost: sum over separate units
1B 1B
N N ¬ N N ¬ N
C cap = C n = C ref ref n x C ref ref ¨
C
n Cdn
n =1
N ® n =1 N ® 1
1C
C ref N ref
= N BC r N BC
1 C
If B > C we want a few large units

It’s 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
d
C = ¨ 0
CP (C )dC
The normalized standard deviation is defined by

1 d 2 ¯
1/ 2
T = ¡ ¨ (C C ) P (C )dC °
C ¢ 0 ±
A Gaussian distribution is a good model for P(C)
C C 2 ¯
1 ¡ ( )°
P (C ) = exp ¡ 2 °
¡ 2 (TC ) °
1/ 2
(2Q ) TC
¢ ±
36
Uncertainties
Multiple Uncertainties
Assume we know C and σ for each uncertain cost.

The values of C are what we used to determine COE.
Specifically 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 σj )
σTot = �
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
effect of the total deviation
Consider the following example
Ccap = 3.61, σc = 0.1
CO&M = 1.27, σOM = 0.15
Cfuel = 0.56, σf = 0.4

Uncertainties Nuclear Power
Example Continued
Continued
The total standard deviation is then given by

�
(σc C cap )2 + (σOM C O&M )2 + (σf C fuel )2
σ=
C cap + C O&M + C fuel
√
0.130 + 0.0363 + 0.0502
= = 0.086
5.4
Large σf has a relatively small effect.
Why is the total uncertainty less than the individual ones?
(Regression to the mean)

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:
ΔE = Q + W + ∑ Ekin nkin − ∑ Ekout nkout
k 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:

Δnk = nkin − nkout + ∫∫ rk dV dt
rk is chemical rate of formation of kth species
reactions don’t 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 ⎛ δQ
⎞
d S ≡
⎜ ⎟
disorder
⎝
T
⎠
rev
• Entropy of the universe is

always increasing Δ 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 (steady state)
0 (first law) 0 (first law)
Q& H Accumulation = In − Out + Generation − Consumption
0 = Q& H −W& W& = Q& H

W& Entropy balance:
0 (steady state)
Sgen 0 (2nd
(2nd llaw)
aw)
Accumulation = In − Out + Generation − Consumption
Q& H & Q& H

0= + S gen S&gen =− <0
TH 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 (steady state)
0 (first law) 0 (first law)
Q& H Accumulation = In − Out + Generation − Consumption
0 = Q& H − Q& C −W& W& = Q& H − Q& C

W& Entropy balance:
0 (steady state)
Sgen 0 (2nd
(2nd llaw)
aw)
Accumulation = In − Out + Generation − Consumption
Q& C
Q& H Q& C & Q& C Q& H
0= − + S gen S&gen = −
TH TC TC TH
No obvious violation of the second law.

Maximum efficiency of heat engine
W&
Q& H
η heat →work ≡ &
QH
To maximize efficiency:
W& S&gen =
Q& C Q& H
− =0 &
QC =
TC &
QH
TC TH TH
Q& C Algebra:
& & TC
& & Q − Q
W&
H H
QH − QC TH TC
η heat → work,max ≡ = = = 1−
Q& H Q& H Q& H TH
Carnot efficiency
W& max TC
η Carnot ≡ = 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
Q
Not Feasible. Violates Second Law
Q Not Feasible. Violates Second Law

W
Hot
Cold
Feasible. Example: electric heater
Q
W
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 ggas
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:
γ −1 γ −1 γ γ
TV hi hi =T V lo lo
PhiVhi = P loV lo
nRThi ⎛ ⎛ VhighP ⎞ ⎞
γ −1
W= ⎜1− ⎜ ⎟ ⎟ γ = C p / C
V
γ −1 ⎜ ⎝ VlowP ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
• Would like to arrange so that Plo~ 1 atm, Tlo ~ lowest
feasible temperature
– Low T good for Carnot efficiency
– If we exhaust the gas, don’t 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
Bottoming
Heat and power are often

Q& H Q&
H
produced together to maximize
the use of otherwise wasted
heat. W&el High-
temp.
• Topping cycles produce heat
electricity from high T, and use Q&&

C need
the waste heat for other
process needs (e.g., MIT co Q& M
gen facility) Low-
• Bottoming cycles are temp.
processes which use medium heat W&el
heat T heat to generate need
electricity.
Q& C
Heat pumps
• Move heat from cold to hot

• Coefficient of performance
(COP)
Q& H Q& H TH
~25°C COPw = ≤
W& TH − TC
Heat • Practically, COPs are ~3
pump W& – 3x as much heat can be
supplied as electricity supplied
– Limited by power generation
~10°C efficiency
Q& C
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
~35°C
performance (COP)
~25°C
Q& H Q& C
Heat W& Q& C TC
pump COPs = ≤
&
W TH − TC
Can convert heat to chemical energy…but still
run into Carnot limit
• CH4 + 2 H2O + Q = CO2 + 4 H2

• ΔHrxn >0 and ΔSrxn>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 can’t 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 Cancún, & 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 Protocol’s 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 long-
term 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.
5
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
6
7
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 vei ememission
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

Please see:
different from sacrifices of developed countries, accounting
Frankel, Jeffrey. "An Elaborated Proposal for
Global Climate Policy Architecture: Specific
for differences in income
Formulas and Emission Targets for All Countries
in All Decades." Discussion Paper 08-08,
� No countries have targets costing more than 1% of GDP Harvard Project on International Climate
Agreements, October 2008.
• Every country contributes no more than its fair share
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
prior to Copenhagen from a diverse set of counties,

•• Support
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.
8
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
Jaffe, Judson, and Robert N. Stavins.
• The Emerging International Regime "Linkage of Tradable Permit Systems
• The Emerging International Regime in International Climate Policy Architecture."
� If cap-and-trade systems link with common emission
- Discussion Paper 08-07, Harvard Project
on International Climate Agreements, September 2008.
reduction-credit system, such as CDM, the cap-and-trade
systems are indirectly linked
� 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
9
Placing COP 15 – Copenhagen – in Perspective
� Cliché about American baseball season applies to international climate change

policy: it’s 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)
� Economically:
Economically: technological
technological change is key,
change is key, hence
hence llong
- term price
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
� Regulation t
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. It’s the least costly approach in short term (heterogeneous abatement costs)
3. It’s the least costly approach in the long term (incentive for carbon-friendly
technological change)
4. It’s 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
Percent Reduction in CO2 Emissions by Sector in 2030 Under an Economy-Wide

Emissions Cap Yielding a $35/ton Allowance Price in 2030 (EIA)
m Baseline Level
40%
35%
30%
from
Reduction in Emissions fro
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)
� California’s 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 Cancún 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 Cancún 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
1
GOALS
• To Understand the Situation and Prospects of the Nuclear Power

Enterprise Within the Overall Energy Context
� Domestically
� Internationally
2
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. 3
TYPES OF STEAM-ELECTRIC
GENERATING PLANTS
Turbine Turbine
Generator Generator
Condenser Condenser
Steam Steam
Fuel
Pump Pump
Water Water
Fuel Fire Pump Pump
Boiler
Fossil fuel Nuclear BWR
Steam Steam
Turbine Liquid sodium Turbine

Generator Generator
Fuel Steam Condenser Steam Condenser

generator Fuel generator
Steam Steam
Pump Pump Intermediate Pump

Pump
Reactor heat exchanger
Water Reactor Water
Pump Pump
Nuclear PWR Nuclear LMFBR
4
PWR FUEL ASSEMBLY AND CUTAWAY
OF OXIDE FUEL FOR COMMERCIAL
LWR POWER PLANTS
A.V. Nero, Jr., A Guidebook to Nuclear Reactors, 1979. 5

Image by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee.
RANGE OF RADIATION IN
TISSUE
Particle Name Range (m) Particle Type and Charge
Fission Product 10-6 Fragment of Nucleus
α 10-4 – 10-5 Helium Nucleus++,
2 protons, 2 neutrons
β 10-3 Electron-
Electron
γ 0.1 – 10 Photon0
n 0.1 – 10 Neutron0
TRANSMUTATION
Stable Isotope Neutron New Isotope
Am + n → Am+1
6
FISSION
235
n+ U → 236 U → 2 Fission Products
+ ν (≈2.5)n
+6β
+ 10 γ
+ neutrinos
+ kinetic energy (≈ 200 MeV)
7
TWO REPRESENTATIVE FISSION
PRODUCT DECAY CHAINS*
Flowchart of decay chains for Br-90 and Xe-143 removed due to copyright restrictions.
8
ENERGY BALANCE FOR AN
AVERAGE FISSION
MeV
Kinetic energy of fission fragments (2 nuclei: A Å95, 165 ± 5
A Å140)
Prompt rays (5 rays) 6 ± 1
Beta decay of fragments (7 rays) 8 ± 1
1.5
.5
Neutrinos related to above 12 ± 2.5
Gamma rays related to above (7 rays) 6 ± 1
Kinetic energy of neutrons (2 to 3 neutrons) 5
9
NEUTRONIC PROPERTIES OF
NUCLEAR FUELS
NEUTRON ENERGIES
THERMAL MeV
Parameter U233 U235 Pu239 U233 U235 Pu239
0.123 0.2509 0.38 0.1 0.15 0.1
2.226 1.943 2.085 2.45 2.3 2.7
2.50 2.43 2.91
2.91 2.7 2.65 3.0

ν n's produced captures n's produced
η= , ; α= ; ν=
1+ α absorption fissions fission
Conversion Reactions:
U 238 + n → U 239 + γ → Np 239 + β− → Pu 239 + β−
Th 232 + n → Th 233 + γ → Pa 233 + β− → U 233 + β−
10
SELF-SUSTAINED CHAIN
REACTION
⎧
1 neutron for subsequent
⎪fission, and
1 neutron + U 235 → η neutrons ⇒
⎨(η -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 + γ
Np 239 + β− + γ
Pu 239 + β− + γ
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 Solar
Terrestrial Solar Power
PHASE Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Nuclear Hydro Photovoltaic Tower Wind Fusion Geothermal
2
Extraction Mining Drilling-Spills Drilling Mining Construction Mining -- -- He, H , Li --
Accidents (off-shore) Accidents Accidents Production
Lung Damage Lung Damage
Refining Refuse Piles Water Pollu -- Milling Tails -- -- -- -- -- --

tion
Transportation Collision Spills Pipeline -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Explosion
On-Site
Thermal High High High Low Efficiency -- Low Efficiency Ecosystem -- -- Low Efficiency
Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Ecosystem Change
Change
Air Particulates SO2, NOx NOx BWR Radia -- -- -- -- -- H2S

SO2, NOx tion Releases
Water Water Treat Water Treat Water Treat Water Treat Destroys Prior
Water Treat Water Treat -- Tritium in Brine in
ment Chemi ment Chemi ment Chemi ment Chemi Ecosystems
ment Chemi ment Chemi Cooling Water Streams
cals cals cals cals cals cals
Aesthetic Large Plant Large Plant Large Plant Small Plant Small Plant Poor Poor Large Area Small Area Poor
Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Large Area Large Area Large Towers Large Area
Lines Lines Lines Lines Lines Noise?
Wastes Ash, Slag Ash -- Spent Fuel -- Spent Cells -- -- Irradiated Struc Cool Brine
Transportation tural Material
Reprocessing
Waste Storage
Sprecial -- -- -- -- -- Construction -- Bird, Human Occupational --

Problems Accidents Injuries Radiation
Doses
Major Mining Oil Spill Pipeline Reactor Dam Failure Fire -- -- Tritium --
Accident Explosion Cooling 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.
15
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html
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,
Russia—most growth is in Asia
16
FUEL FOR ELECTRICITY
GENERATION 2006
Fuel for Electricity Generation 2006
TWh: 2864 407 1073 617 4277 3569 991 398

100
% 50
0
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 104

France 58
Japan 54
Russian Federation 32
Korea, Republic of 21
India 19
United Kingdom 19
Canada 18
Germany 17
Ukraine 15
China 13
Sweden 10
Spain 8
Belgium 7
Czech Republic 6
Switzerland 5
Finland 4
Hungary 4
Slovak Republic 4
Argentina 2
Brazil 2
Bulgaria 2
Mexico 2
Pakistan 2
Romania 2
South Africa 2
Armenia
Netherlands
1
1
World Total: 441 Reactor units
Slovenia 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Note: Long-term shutdown units (5) are not counted
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: International Atomic Energy Agency.
18
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.oprconst.htm
NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY
PRODUCTION AND SHARE OF TOTAL
ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION
Nuclear Electricity Production and Share of Total Electricity Production
20 3000
Nuclear Electricity Production

18
2500
Nuclear Share (%) - line
16
(TWh) - bar
14
2000
12
10 1500
8
1000
6
4
500
2
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
01
03
05
07
09
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from the World Nuclear Association.
19
NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY
GENERATION 2007
Nuclear Electricity Generation 2007
80
Nuclear electricity generation % (World 15%)
70
Bar width is indicative of the amount of electricity in each country
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Czech Republic
France
Lithuania
Slovakia
Belgium
Ukraine
Sweden
Armenia
Switzerland
Slovenia
Hungary
South Korea
Bulgaria
Finland
Japan
Germany
USA
Spain
Russia
UK
Canada
Romania
Argentina
South Africa
Mexico
Netherlands
India
Brazil
Pakistan
China
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from the World Nuclear Association.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html 20
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Share of Total Electricity Production in OECD Countries, 2009
80
75.1
75
70
65
60
54.4
55 51.7
50
45 43.5
38.2
% 40 37.4
34.7 35.8
35 33.1
29.2
30
25.1 25.3
25 22.8 22.0
20.2 18.8
20 17.5 17.9
14.8
15
10
3.2 4.4
5
0
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Mexico
Canada
Spain
United Kingdom
United States
Japan
Germany
Finland
Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Hungary
Belgium
Slovak Republic
France
OECD
OECD America
OECD Europe
OECD Pacific
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: OECD.
21
Source: http://www.oecd.org, Nuclear Energy Data, 2010
EXISTING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
(Approximately 441 Worldwide)
Fraction of Units Under

Country Electricity Construction Operating Units
France 75.2 1 59
Belgium 51.7 0 7
Bulgaria 35.9 0 2
S. Korea 34.8 6 21
Switzerland 39.5 0 5
Japan 28.9 2 55
UK 17.9 0 19
USA 20.2 1 104
Russia 17.8 10 32
S. Africa 4.8 0 2
Netherlands 3.7 0 1
China 1.9 23 13
Sources: world-nuclear.org & euronuclear.org, 10/10
22
SUMMARY OF TYPES OF POWER
REACTORS USED WORLDWIDE
Coolant
Temperature Current
Type Coolant Moderator (C) Deployment Population
Pressurized Light Water Light Water 300 Most nuclear 265
Water (PWR) countries
Boiling Water Light Water Light Water 300 Most nuclear 94
(BWR) countries
RBMK Light
Lig ht Water Graphite
Graphite 300 Former USSR* 16
Pressurized Heavy Heavy 300 Canada, Korea, 44
Heavy Water Water Water China, Argentina,
(PHWR) India, Pakistan
Gas-Cooled Carbon Graphite 600 UK, Russia 18
(GCR) Dioxide,
Helium
Liquid Metal- Sodium, None 600 France, UK, Japan, 2
Cooled Lead, Lead- Russia; former
(LMFBR) Bismuth USSR, China and
India
*Union of Soviet Socialists Republics
23
French Electricity Output
500 Coal
Oil
Nuclear
Hydro
Other
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
• Electricité de France is a big exporter and owner
• Nuclear power shutdowns have been mandated in Sweden,
Germany and Belgium; now being revoked or reconsidered
• Fifth Finnish nuclear unit (EPR) plant is proceeding
proceeding
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 well-
developed
� Vietnam, Jordan, Italy: Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure
developing
� Thailand,
Thailand, Indonesia,
Indonesia, Egypt,
Egypt, Kazakhstan,
Kazakhstan, Poland,
Poland, Belarus, Lithuania: Well-
Well
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).

36
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.
EXISTING USA
NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY
Utilities
NRC Office of New Reactors
Vendors
¥ Power capacity ¥ Reactor oversight process

¥ General Electric
increases continuing continues in force
n In alliancewith Hitachi
¥ Operating record is ¥ Risk-informed regulation
n Nuclear operations are
good but not improving has stalled
now in North Carolina
¥ Restructuring of economic ¥ 17 new plant licenses under

n ESBWR cancelled
regulation has stalled application for 28 reactors

reactors
¥ Consolidation has slowed ¥ Three new plants being built ¥ purchasedby

Westinghouse
Toshiba
n Exelon-PSEG merger (who also make
failed BWRs)
n Constellation-FPL ¥ Areva in alliance with
merger failed Constellation Energy,
¥ Plant purchaseshave EDF, Mitsubishi in
stopped UniStar
¥ Restructuring of economic ¥ Mitsubishi entering US
regulation has stalled 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
Heavy Water Reactor (PH
(PHWR)
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
2
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
3
Carnot Efficiency
TH
T
W& max TC W = Area
η Carnot ≡ = 1− TC
Q& H TH
• 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, ηCarnot=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
⎞ ⎛ T
H
⎞
η * Carnot
=
1 −
ln
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ −
1⎟⎟
⎝
T
C
⎠ ⎝
T
C
⎠
• For TH=1800 K, TC=300 K, η*Carnot=64%

5
Carnot & Carnot* Efficiency for Range of Temperature Ratios
100%
90%
80%
70%
Efficiency
60%
50%
40% Carnot
30% Carnot*
20%
10%
0%
1 3 5 7 9
TH/TC
6
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
TH = 264 C
300
Boil TC = 100 C
B ηcarnot = 31%
250
ηideal = 27%
Expand
T 200
150 A
Pump
100 C/D
E Condense
50
0
S
8
Reality 3
Ambient Pressure not Hard Limit For Closed Cycles
400 Vacuum Example:

350
TH = 264 C
300 TC = 33 C
Boil
B ηcarnot = 43%
250
ηideal = 37%
T 200
Expand
150
100
A
50 Pump Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar C/D
0 E
S
9
Reality 4
Real Pumps and Turbines have Entropy Losses
400
Losses Example:
350 ηturbine = 90%
ηpump = 65%
300
Boil
B
250 ηcarnot = 43%
ηideal = 37%
T 200
ηreal = 33%
Expand
150
100
A
0 E
S
10
Reality 5
Expanding into Two-Phase Region is a Problem
400
350
300
Boil
B
250
T 200
Expand
150
100
A
0 E
S
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 +300 C
Boil
B TH = 564 C
Expand
250
TC = 33 C
T 200 VaporFrac = 90%
ηcarnot = 63%
150
ηreal = 36%
100
A
50 Pump Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar
0 E
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
Superheat=
300 +150 C
Boil
B TH = 414 C
250
TC = 33 C
T 200 VaporFrac = 97%
150
ηcarnot = 55%
ηreal = 36%
100
A
50 Pump Vacuum Condenser @ .05 bar
0 E
S
14
Regenerative Cycles
• Preheat with lower quality heat
– Extract steam from turbines
– Feedwater heaters
• Open (Direct contact)
Regeneration Example:
Regeneration Example:
• Closed (Indirect)
BOILER
Extraction Factor = 12%
HPT LPT
ηcarnot = 55%
ηreal = 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: ~ 600°C
• Economizer to recover heat from flue gas
• Fuel utilization is key metric for fossil fuel power
W
η Fuel Utilization =
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
3
2
1 4
20
Evolution of Turbine Blade Technology
Film/convection
Advanced cooling
Rotor inlet gas temperature - (oF)
4200
Single crystal
3800 material family
Convection
3400
3000 Turbine material

Solid melt temperatures
2600
2200
1800
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Tgas - Tmetal
Cooling effectiveness
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 Çengel, 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 of the
Energy System: Fossil Fuel
elss
Prof. William Green

MIT Dept. of Chem. Eng.
Sustainable Energy class, Fallll 2010
2010
Fossil Fuels DOMINANT for last 100 years
World primary energy supply 1850-2000
500
1 EJ = 1018J = 0.948 Quads
450
400
Gas
350
Oil
300
EJ/year
250 Coal
200 Nuclear
150 Hydro +
100 Biomass
50
0
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
transportationn
�
� Electricity, transport from burning fuel in heat engines.
Electricity, engines.
�
� A simple overall chemical reaction:
reaction:
– CH2x
– 2 x + (1+x/2)
2x (1+x/2) O2 � CO2 + x H2O + he heat
heat
at
–
– 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
Price / Affordability
Affordability
– At current prices, energy is u un
naaffffo
orrd
daab
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
easese cocost
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
Environmental & 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
energy… in a century or two: LoLong
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
– We’ll “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
Fossil Fuels are Cheaper than Alternatives
es
–W
Why
hy ~85% of world’s energy from fossil fuels
fuels
–H
How
ow to incorporate social cost into price?
price?
� A few countries hold almost all the world’s
world’s
oil and gas
gas reserves
– Security? Balance
Balanceof
ofTr
Trad
ade?
e? De
Deve
velo
lopm
pmen
ent?
t?
� Prices
Prices fluctuate wildly (inflexible market)
market)
–A
Adds
dds to risks for new energy supply ventures
ventures
� Energy
E nergy is lifeblood of economy
of economy
–G
Governments
overnments very heavily involved…
involved…
Pressing Issues, Now to 2025
� ~50% increase in total g
gllobal
obal energy demand!!
– H
Huug
gee lo
long
ngtte
errm
meen
ne
errg
gyy iin
nffrra
assttrru
uccttu
urre
e iin
nvve
essttm
me
ennttss
– D
Doo these investments work for the planet, long term? term?
� Engineering & policies for large
larges
scca
alle co
on
ns
seerrv
vaattiio
on
n
– E
Electricity:
lectricity: more efficient production, devices, system
system??
– C
Capex
apex vs. Opex: Doesn’t always favor energy efficiency.
efficiency.
� Can
Can 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.
–NNatural
atural Gas? Price? How to transport it? Security?
Security?
– Coal? G
Greenhouse
reenhouse Gases! Feasible to sequesterer CO
CO2?
– Nuclear? RReduce
educe chance of Weapons prolifefera
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
neerrg
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)
� VVery
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
Most Hydrocarbon Resources are Solids
Solids
–
– Coal: 1000 Gton carbon ((~
~110
00 ye
ea
arrs
s))
–
– Oil Shale: 500 Gton carbon ( ~550
0yye
ea
arrs
s))
–
– Tar Sands: 400 Gton carbon ( ~330
0yye
ea
arrs
s))
–
– Biomass:
B iomass: 60 Gton carbon/yr
carbon/yr
–
– Oil: 300 Gton carbon ( ~3
30
0yye
ea
arrss))
–
– Natural Gas: >100 Gton carbon ( ~3
30
0yye
eaarrs
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
How 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 of this 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
largee
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 H2OH2O
– 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
–
– SSolid
olid waste from impurities in coal
coal
�
� Stateof
State ofthe
theaart
rt oil/gas produ
production
ctio
ct io n m
minimizes
inim
in imiz
izes
es
environmental impacts, yet…
–
– SSignificant
ignificant CO2 emissions in production.
production.
–
– PPotential
otential for large accidental leaks.
leaks.
–
– Work in Arctic and off
offssh
ho
orre is da
anng
ge
erro
ouuss..
�
� Coal and tar production is ve
very
ry me
mess
ssyy
–
– OOften
ften big environmental impacts at the mine.
mine.
–
– TTar
ar mining consumes lots of water, energy.
energy.
–
– MMining
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:
World’s 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. Colorado’s Green
River formation is most valuable.
15-20% solid kerogen in impervious
15-
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.
Maybe new in
situ method will
avoid mining,
Photo by SkyTruth on Flickr. 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
adee
� ~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
eenhhouse Ga
Gass Consider
idera
atio
ion
ns
Fossi
ssill sol
solids emit more CO2 tha
hann oil
– Biom
omass
ass rou
outtes emit lle
ess CO2 than oi
oill
Fossi
ssill Solids-to-Liquids conv
nveersi
sio
on doub
ublles CO2
emissi
ssioons
Chi
hina
na is committing heheaavily to Coal
– Coal
oal--to-Elect
ctrrici
citty is th
the biggest si
sin
ngle sou
sourrce of C
CO
O2.
– Tech
chnnology
ology to re
reduce CO2 emissi ssion
ons…at
s…at a pr
price
consu
con summers in China, India, US will acceaccep
pt?
Some so
sorrt of political resp
spoonse to Climate Cha
hang
nge
e
is coming (probably, event ntua
uallly)….
– Car
arbbon cap
capss or tta
axes?
xes?
– Tighter effici
cie
ency regulatatiion
ons?
s?
– Lar
arg
gescal
scale
e CO2 cap
captture an
andd se
seqquest
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
N22
– 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

Sustainable Energy – Fall 2010 – Fossil Fuels I 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
1
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
2
Global Carbon Cycle (IPCC/EIA)
All Entries in Billion Metric Tons
ATMOSPHERE
780 (900 eq)
6.5
1.6 0.5
61.3
60.0
Changing 92
Land-Use 90
FOSSIL FUEL
COMBUSTION
VEGETATION & SOILS

OCEAN
2,200
40,000
3
It’s 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

MIT Energy Initiative 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)
= T∫0 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): 686-688. © 2005. 5
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
23
16 14 12
GDP per capita ($k ppp)
10 10 8 6 4 3 2 1 1 0.7 0.3
19
15.8 CO2 per capita
11 (tons)
9.7 10
8.6
6.2
6.2 6.6
4.1 4.3 5
1.9 1.5 1.3 0.8 0.1 0 0 0.03
6.1
5.7
Total CO2 Emissions

(gigatons)
1.3 1.5 1.5

0.8
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.35 0.4 0.27 0.33 0.1 0.006 0.04 0.0007 0.002
7 7
Developing Countries Focus on Income Growth
US India
Greenstone 8
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!
9
US Carbon Dioxide Emissions (EIA
BAU)
Millions of Metric Tons
Residential + Industrial Transportation Total
Commercial
2006 2030 2006 2030 2006 2030 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 9 189 217 0 0 289 226
Electricity 1698 2295 642 647 4 5 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* Breakeven Gas Price*
$/MMBtu $/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
Price-based
mitigation
50% by 2050
No offsets
��
Electric sector
��
Total energy
Gas: A Bridge to ???

US power sector
Nuclear or other
low-CO2
generation
Gas
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 cont’d
� 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 cont’d
� 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
� CO2 emissions 17% below 2005 by 2020
� 83% by 2050
� Depends on Congressional action (above represent current discussions)

� China
� 40-45% lower CO2/GDP by 2020
� 15% non-fossil by 2020
� 40M additional hectares forest by 2020
� India
� 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
� 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
� Electricity and NG for buildings, oil for transportation
� Displacement of existing coal (without CCS)

� 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 at should
What should be
be the
the revised
revised energy/climate
energy/climate strategy?
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--Bogotá,
México, Santiago and São Paulo
• Wider Urban Contrasts

• Contrasts--8
--8 World Cities
Cities
• The Tricky Case of Congestion Pricing
• The Challenges--Are We Meeting

Them?
Program Contrasts:
Bogotá, México, Santiago,
São 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:

México Santiago São Paulo Bogotá
70s and Private Operators, Public operation, some CMTC, Municipal Bus Private Operators subject to
before some regulation regulated private Company operated main control from the Ministry of
operators lines, and subcontrat other Transportation
services
80s Governments Total privatization and Increase in the proportion of In 1987, regulation of urban
takes over all liberalization lines operated by CMTC. buses is transfered to
routes, Ruta-100 Initial BRT corridors and municipalities
is created trolleybuses were built.
built.
90s Ruta-100 goes Strong move towards Privatization of Municipal Municpality allowed three
bankrupt, government’s regulation Public Bus Company. fare levels according to level
explosive growth of private operators, route SPTRans, an agency in of service to encourage fleet
of informal transit bidding process charge of transit planning and renewal. Restrictions to the
management, is created import of new buses were
lifted.
2000s Government trying Route associations Working toward fare Transmilenio is launched.
to control informal becoming formal firms, integration. Fare integration with other
transit international operators New BRT lines being built. private operators.
moving in, integration with
subway
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:
México City Santiago Bogotá São Paulo
Name of the Hoy no Circula Restricción Vehicular Pico y Placa Rodizio

program
Hours of 5:00 – 22:00 7:00 – 19:00 7:00 – 9:00 7:00 – 10:00
operation 17:00 – 19:00 17:00 – 20:00
Vehicles that Only vehicles built Only vehicles built All vehicles All vehicles
are subject before 1993 before 1992
% of these 20% 20% 40% 20%

vehicles banned
each day
Comments •Relative high cost • From late 80s • From 1998. • From 1996.
of new vehicles • Low tariffs and a • Fixed schedule • Only within central
From 1989 rotatory schedule (changed once a area
•has incentivated (changes once a year) • Fixed schedule
the purchase of month) have reduced
old cars the incentives to buy
• Fixed schedule secondary cars
Hoy No Circula: Mexico
Mixed Opinion: a Dialog
• Objectives both environmental and

congestion oriented.
• México 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 5 4
Total extension 202 60 58

((km)
km)
Passengers per 1,430 200 520

year (million)
Passengers per km 7.1 4.9 10.1

of alignment
(million)
Average fare per 16.1 38.0 33.6
passenger (US
cents)
Mode Share (over 12% (1999) 7% (2001) 8% (1997)
motorized trips)
Urban Transportation Modeling
México City Santiago Bogotá São Paulo
Models EMME/2 ESTRAUS EMME/2, MVA’s START

being used (developed in Transcad, Tranus
Chile), EMME2
Who Secretary of the SECTRA, Ministry Secretary of Secretary for
mantains Environment, DF of Public Works Transportation of Metropolitan
the data? Bogota, Transportation
Transmilenio.
O/D Last one in 1994, Last one in 2002 Last one in 1997
surveys which has some
errors
Comments • Not enough ESTRAUS is START was adapted
resources to integrated with to SP for the
mantain the land-use model formulation of a
model (MUSSA) and transportation plan
• Not very useful emissions model for 2020 (PITU
at present state (MODEM) 2020)
Focus on the Two-Wheeler Dilemma
City Belo Horizonte Chennai Dakar Kuala Lumpur Mexico City Mumbai Shanghai Wuhan
Region Latin America South Asia Africa South East Asia Latin America South Asia Asia Asia
GDP per capita (USS) $6,000 $800 $1,500 $8,000 $7,500 $1,200 $4,200 (2000) $2,000
Population millions 4.2 7 2.5 4 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 26%<15 43%<15 27%<15 30%<15 26%<15 12%<15 16%<15
4%>65 8%>60 5%<55 4%>65 5%>65 6%>60 12%<65 12%>65
Trip rate (trips/day) 1.43 1.24 2.3 2.4 1.2-1.4 1.26 1.95 2.25
(1995) (1993) (1998) (1997) (1994) (1996) (1998)
Personal vehicles/1,000 pop. 225 4-wheelers 40 4-wheelers 42 300 4-wheelers 110 27 4-wheelers 4-20 4-wheelers 14 4-wheelers
22 2-wheelers 171 2-wheelers 170 2-wheelers 8 2-wheelers 25 2-wheelers 35 2-wheelers 31 2-wheelers
Rail transit 1 line metro 1 line metro 1 suburban rail 3 lines LRT 11 line metro 2 suburban rail 3 metro lines none
3 suburban rail 2 sub rail Services 3 lines
Fare (USS) $0.30 $0.10 $0.20-0.60 $0.20 $0.12-0.50
Non-motorized transport 5-7% 44% 44% NA NA NA 72% 61%

(1995) (possibly 15%) 26% in 1981 (1995)
Public transport 69% 47% 45% 20% 70% 88% 17% 22%
(1995) (of motorized) (of motorized) (of motorized) (1995)
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD), Overview of Main Traits of Developing Countries.
Guayaquil, Ecuador
Carlos González B.; César Arias 2006

Courtesy of Cesar Arias. Used with permission.
Carlos González B.; César 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 the Introduction at the start of the survey sheet for

those not familiar with Congestion Pricing.
Survey Questions and Responses
Total Mexican Respondents = 50

1) Are you familiar with the concept of congestion pricing?
Yes: 19 No: 25 Not Completely: 6
Familiarity with the issue of congestion pricing
50
45
40
35 Not
No. of Respondents
completely
30
38%
25
Yes
20 50%
15
10
0
Yes No Not completely
No
Responses
12%
Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.

1) How serious do you consider the problem of traffic

congestion in Mexico City today?
Still not a problem 0 Reasonable problem 6
Problem in a critical stage 44
How serious is the problem of congestion in MC today? Still not a Reason
problem able
50
0% problem
45 12%
40
No. of Respondents
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 Problem in
Still not a problem Reasonable Problem in a critical
a critical
problem stage
Responses
stage
88%
3) What do you think is the worst impact of traffic congestion
in Mexico City? Please rank top 3 options.
Loss in productivity/quality of life ____ Travel delays ____
Road accidents _____ Air pollution _____
High fuel/infrastructure costs _____ Other _____
Ranking of Impacts Considered Important Road
High Other Rank 1
accidents 0%
fuel/infrastruc
2%
50 ture costs
respondentts
s
45 6%
Number of responden
40
Travel delays
35 11%
30 Rank 3
25 Rank 2
Loss in
20
Rank 1 productivity/q
15 uality of life
10 52%
5 Air pollution
0 29%
Other
fuel/infrastructure
productivity/quality
Travel delays
Air pollution
Road accidents
Loss in
High
costs
of life
Travel delays
Impacts
Loss in productivity/quality of life
(can be added up)
Best Way to Deal With Traffic Congestion in Mexico City
Top 3 Ranks for Preferred Policy Options
50
45
40
Respondents
espondents
35
30 Rank 3
25 Rank 2
No. of R
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) Best Option for Raising 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 E
Option C 2%
50
12% Rank 1
45
40
35
ondents
ndents
Option D Option B
30 Rank 3
14%
44%
Respo
25 Rank 2
No. of Resp
20 Rank 1
15
10
5
0
Option B Option A Option D Option C Option E Option A
Different Options Considered 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 B Rank 1
50 Option C
2%
10%
45
40
35 Option A Option D
dents
ents
30 16% 37%
Respond
Rank 3
No. of Respon
25 Rank 2
20 Rank 1
15
10
5
0
Option D Option E Option A Option C Option B Option E
35%
Policy Options
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
and B above?
Car owners ____ Colectivo / taxi drivers ____ Freight operators ____
Businesses ____ Other ____
Stakeholder Group Expected to Have Most Resistance to a Pricing Other Ranks 1 or 2

Policy Business 4%
6%
Freight
50
operators
45 10%
40
Car
No. of Respondents
35 owners
30 Rank 3 49%
25 Rank 2
20 Rank 1
15 Colectivo /
10 taxi drivers
31%
5
0
Car owners Colectivo / taxi Freight Businesses Other Note: The respondents who chose
drivers operators
the option “Other”, specified their
Stakeholder Groups
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

Tax
50 reduction
(e.g.
Rank 1
45
Improving tenencia)
40
6%
institutiona
No. of Respondents
35
l capacity
30 Rank 3 10%
25 Rank 2
20 Rank 1
15 General
fund for Road and
10 public
health,
5 education, transport
welfare improvem
0
projects ents
Road and public General fund for Improving Tax reductions (e.g.
24% 60%
transport health, education, institutional capacity tenencia)
improvements welfare projects
Options

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 _____ Fragmented institutions _____ Poor
enforcement _____ Lack of alternatives to driving _____ Vandalism of traffic cameras
and other installations _____ Political conflicts ______
Biggest Challenge for Pricing in Mexico City
35
30
No. of Respondents
25 Rank 3
20 Rank 2
15 Rank 1
10
5
0
alternatives
Fragmented
Lack of
Vandalism of
Political
enforcement
conflicts
funds
installations
resistance
institutions
to driving
Lack of
cameras /
Public
traffic
Poor
Options

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 Energrgyy?
� Is improving effic
fficiency to reduce fo
fosssil fu
fueel
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
f SSCALE: $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
Fossil Fuels III:
Liquid Fuels 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)
–
– AAnd
nd most petroleum is used for transportation
transportation
–
– Well
Welle
established
stablished technology: reliable, conve
enniie
enntt
�
� No technology in sight to replace liquid fuels for air
No air
transportation.
�
� Cars,
C ars, trucks, trains: several future options
options
–
– MMore
ore efficient internal combustion engines
engines
� F
Fuel
uel cells are another type of ‘engine’
‘engine’
–
– AAlternative
lternative liquid fuels
fuels
–
– GGaseous
aseous fuels (natural gas, H2)
H2)
� N
Need
eed to generate the H2 (from natural gas?)
gas?)
–
– EElectric
lectric (overhead wires or batteries)
batteries)
� N
Need
eed to generate the electricity (from coal?)
coal?)
Liquid
Liquid 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
rkeet 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 Noonnsense
sense
– Wars, economic cycles, natural disasters
– P
Poolitical
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.
ice is almost impossible to predict.
Price
Pr
Fuel taxes, subssiidies
dies & regulations even worse.
Graph of crude oil prices from 1947-2009 removed due to copyright restrictions.
Big T
Trransport
rtaation 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 traran
nsp
sport
ort
liquid fuel dema
eman nd & oil
oil prod
roduuction
on??
Venezuelan tar (“extra heavy oil”)
Unexpected oil discoveries or production rates
Improved petroleum recovery rates
Gas-
Gas-to-
to-Liquids
Faster than expected development of tar sands
Improved transport system efficiency
Coal-
Coal-to-
to-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: don’t 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
Hydrogegen n in
insstead of
of ba
battterie
riess?
Fuel cells in
insstead ofof heat eenngin
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
Gas-
Gas-to-
to-Syngas
Syngas--to-
to-Liquids
– Commercial: Sumatra, Qatar
– Requires cheap gas, has to compete with LNG
Coal-
Coal-to-
to-SynGas
SynGas--to-
to-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
–EEach
ach step adds expense & reduces efficiency.
efficiency.
– Most processes greatly in
incr
crea
ease
se CO
CO2 emimiss
ssio
ions
ns!!
–MModularize
odularize to deal with complexity, but…
but…
� What
What 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” moduleles.
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
oppsscch diie
esse
ell))
– 0
0.4
.4 mbd operational or under construction.
construction.
� Coalto
Coal toLiquids (F
(FT diesel, F
FT ga
asso
olliin
nee,, o
orr m
meetth
haan
nooll))
– 0.15 mbd in So
South
S out
uth A
Africa
fric
frica
a
– P
Planned
lanned construction of ~1 mbd in China
China
� Common
Common 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
onss
– 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
Alternative 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
eaad 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
umptptio
ion.
n.
� R
� Reactions
eactions (and separations) that work at T’s 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 of gasoline or light diesel.
� If polar, must be biodegradable to avoid
groundwater contamination.
� If soluble 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
–PPolyols,
olyols, certain other polyoxygenates
polyoxygenates
–MMost
ost likely from biomass
biomass
– Relatively
Relatively little is know about this option.
option.
option
� Alcohols,
Alcohols, 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
ommb
biio
omma
assss))
�S
Similar
imilar to oil, any advantage to keep separate??
separate??
What is n
neeeded forr a 3rd Fuel to
ded fo
beccome e
be esstablis
blishhed?
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 long-
long-lived consensus?
What could prompt long
longlived
consensus on a new fuel?
� All the stakeholders should derive some
benefit from the new fuel’s introduction.
– There must be a significant advantage to the 3rd
fuel.
fuel
–HHow
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
Boring
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 Clean Air Power truck

running diesel/H2 mix 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
Third
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
changge
e in liquid fuel mix is coming:
–T
Thhe
erre is no
ott e
en
noou
uggh
hooiill!! IItt iiss e
exxp
peen
nssiivve
e!!
–C
Current
urrent system is not environmentally responsible. responsible.
–N
Noo one has energy security.
security.
� Difficult
Difficult 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
umpp
– Electricity (e.g. plug

plugiin
n hybrid)?. Ga
asse
ess???? P
Po
olla
ar liq
iquiuids
ds??
??
– A third oil
oilssoluble
oluble fuel could become widely ava aiilla
abl
ble,
e, if
if……
�nnew
ew vehicle technology can deliver big advantages by by
keeping the third fuel distinct.
�TThe
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 Diesel HCCI
Fuel/Air Air 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
� Basis:
Ba
Basis:
sis: 1000
Side View
– 2d calculation (pancake cylinder)
950
– no chemistry
900
– working fluid is pure air
– thermal correction applied later 850
� Mesh: 800
– 160 x 190 grid
750
Top View – coarser mesh in core
– fine mesh in BL (60 µm spacing)
Calcs using KIVA, by A. Amsden, LANL
Ch
C emistry can be quite complex
hemistry
4500
PRF
(Curran et al.)
4000 Popular Kinetic 1000
Models for Fuel Chemistry iso-octane
3500
(Curran et al.)
Number of Reactions
Reactions
800
Number of Species
Species
3000
n-heptane
(Curran et al.)
2500
600
2000
1500 hydrogen 400

propane
1000 methane (Marinov)
(GRIMech3.0) n-butane 200
500 (ENSIC Nancy)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Carbon Number
Ea
E ach
ch chemical reaction has its own
(complicated) story
CH3 + H2CO → CH4 + HCO
-11
-12
-13
se
log(k) cc/molec s ec
c
-14
-15
-16
-17
Susnow et al., Chem. Phys. Lett. 1999

-18
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1000/T

Wh
W hat
at Speed
SpeedLoad Range c
ca
ann 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 engine’s 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
1

NUCLEAR WASTE
Locations of Spent Nuclear Fuel and

High-Level Radioactive Waste
Defense Complex
Commercial
Clean-Up
Spent Nuclear
Fuel
Support of
Nonproliferation
Initiatives, e.g.
Disposition of
Disposal of DOE
Naval
Foreign Research
Reactor Spent
Reactor Spent
Nuclear Fuel
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
4

TRANSPORTATION CASK
Image by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

TIMELINE FOR NUCLEAR
WASTE DISPOSAL
1957 1982 1987 1992 2002 2008 2010 2017
National Academy Congress limited President recommended DOE shuts

of Sciences (NAS) characterization and Congress approved down Yucca
supported deep to Yucca Mountain Yucca Mountain Mountain License
geologic disposal Application
Congress passes Energy Policy DOE scheduled DOE scheduled to begin

Nuclear Waste Act sets Environ- to submit License receipt of spent nuclear fuel
Policy Act mental Protection Application and high-level radioactive
Agency (EPA) waste (will not happened)
standard process
6

YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA
Washoe County
Humboldt County Elko County
Pershing
County
Eureka
County
Churchill
County
Lander
Storey White
County Pine
Carson City County
Douglas
Nye County
Lyon
Mineral
Lincoln
County
County Nellis Air
Force Base
Esmeralda
County Inyo NV Test
Clark
County Site
County
California
Yucca Las
Vegas
Mountain
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 7


YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE
8

YUCCA MOUNTAIN
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
SUBSURFACE OVERVIEW
SUBSURFACE OVERVIEW
1,000
Surface Feet
North Portal
Repository South Portal

Level
Water
Table 1,000 Protective
Outer Barrier
Feet
Mechanical Support
Inner Barrier
Various Permanent
Permanent Waste Waste Packages
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!
10

Source: U.S. Department of Energy.
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 Influences

-
Radionuclide Transport in Ground Water

-
Radionuclide Transport as Vapors and Gases

-
Water Infiltration 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 Solvent High-Level

Extraction Waste
Uranium +
Plutonium
Uranium Uranium
Plutonium
Separation Plutonium

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
α=
Dimpurity
D’s for Uranium and Plutonium are Much Higher Than the
Fission Products, Thus a Separation (large α) 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
~$1300/kg

Cost of Fuel Fabrication
~$ 350/kg

Energy Value of Plutonium
~$ 200/kg

Uranium Credit
~$ 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. Source: S.A. Simonson, “Waste Technology Issues,” undated.

32

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT: ITS
CAPACITY, ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL COST,
AND ESTIMATED LIFETIME
Fig. 2-3 in Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production. 33

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, February 1991, OTA-O-484.
SOUTHERN NEVADA REGION
Source: Fig. 1-5 in "Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report." U.S. Department of
34

Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (February 2002): DOE/RW-0539-1.
INTERESTED PARTIES
Image by U.S. Department of Energy. Source: S.A. Simonson, “Waste Technology Issues,” undated.
35

OBSERVATIONS
• Complex, First-of-a-Kind Project

• Public Acceptance Dominates
• Numerous Oversight Entities
• Incredible Meetings Schedule
• Fire Drills Dominate Strategic Planning
• Radioactive Waste People are Competent and Hardworking
• DOE Bureaucracy is a Major Challenge

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.
38

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.
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 Spent fuel

elements Mixed oxide elements
fuel elements
Fabrication of uranium Fabrication of mixed

fuel elements oxide fuel elements
Interim storage of
spent fuel elements
EXPANSION OF
CIVILIAN NUCLEAR
Enriched
uranium Uranium Plutonium
Depleted
uranium
Conversion, enrichment
Natural
Barren uranium
ore
Uranium
Reprocessing plant Conditioning plant
Radioactive
waste POWER AND
Uranium ore
dressing
Waste treatment
PROLIFERATION
Uranium Pit
ore
Uranium ore
deposits Repository
1
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 Desal
Reverse osmosis
2
TYPES OF STEAM-ELECTRIC
GENERATING PLANTS
Turbine Turbine
Generator Generator
Condenser Condenser
Steam Steam
Fuel
Pump Pump
Water Water
Fuel Fire Pump Pump
Boiler
Fossil fuel Nuclear BWR
Steam Steam
Turbine Liquid sodium Turbine

Generator Generator
Fuel Steam Condenser Steam Condenser

generator Fuel generator
Steam Steam
Pump Pump Intermediate Pump

Pump
Reactor heat exchanger
Water Reactor Water
Pump Pump
Nuclear PWR Nuclear LMFBR
3
ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF FUEL MATERIALS
REQUIRED FOR ROUTINE (EQUILIBRIUM)
OPERATIONS OF 1,000 MWe LWR
Ore U3O8 UF6
85,600 162 203

Mine Milling Conversion
150
Enriched Depleted uranium
Fuel UF6 tails storage*
38 63
Power reactor Fabrication Enriching UF6
High level
Spent Fuel solid waste
36 7
Reprocessing Federal
Repository
Low level wastes
50
Commercial burial
*Not required for reactor but must be stored safely;
has value for future breeder reactor blanket.
4
URANIUM
• Abundance/Supply Duration [see IAEA Red Book]
Where
Centuries at current usage rates
Decades at heavy usage rates
• Composition Overview
235 238
U U
Natural Uranium 0.007 0.993
LWR Gas-Cooled Reactor
0.03 - 0.05 0.97 - 0.95
Uranium
New Research Reactor Uranium ² 0.20 ³ 0.80
Old Research Reactor Uranium ² 0.93 ³ 0.07
Breeder Reactor Uranium 0.15 - 0.35 0.65 - 0.85
PLUTONIUM
• Abundance – Potentially Unlimited
• Source: Neutron Absorption Reactions in Reactors
Bare Critical Neutron Source Specific

Isotope Source Reaction Mass (kg) Density (n/g⋅s) Power (W/kg)
238 237
Pu Np + n → 238Pu + 10 2600 570
242
Cm → 238Pu +
239 238
Pu U + n → 239Pu + 2 10 --- 1.9
240 239
Pu Pu + n → 240Pu 40 910 7.1
241 240
Pu Pu + n → 241Pu 12 --- 3.2
242 241
Pu Pu + n → 242Pu 100 1700 0.7
6
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
nil nil 1.23 0.364 0.11 0.139
/sec-kg
Watts/kg 1.3 nil 0.281 0.00006 8E-06 0.021
Critical
162 infinite* 16.4 47.9 infinite* 59
mass** (kg)
* Not explosive fissionable material

**Bare sphere 7
SALIENT PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF
POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS (continued)
Isotope Pu238 Pu239 Pu240 Pu241 Pu242 Am241
Halflife (y) 88 24k 6.54k 14.7 376k 433
Neutrons
2.67M 21.8 1.03M 49.3 1.73M 1540
/sec-kg
Watts/kg 560 2.0 7.0 6.4 0.12 115
Critical
10 10.2 36.8 12.9 89 57
mass** (kg)
**Bare sphere 8
SALIENT PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF
POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE
FISSIONABLE MATERIALS (continued)
Isotope Am243 Cm244 Cm245 Cm246 Bk247 Cf251
Halflife (y) 7.38k 18.1 8.5k 4.7k 1.4k 898
Neutrons
900 11B 147k 9B nil nil
/sec-kg
Watts/kg 6.4 2.8k 5.7 10 36 56
Critical
155 28 13 84 10 9
mass** (kg)
**Bare sphere 9
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
Compressed
supercritical mass Explosion
High explosive
surrounds core
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
THERMAL MeV
Parameter U233 U235 Pu239 U233 U235 Pu239
0.123 0.2509 0.38 0.1 0.15 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
ν n's produced n's captured n's produced
η= , ; α= ; ν=
1 + α absorption fission fission
Conversion Reactions:
U 238 + n → U 239 + γ → Np 239 + β− → Pu 239 + β−
Th 232 + n → Th 233 + γ → Pa 233 + β− → U 233 + β−
12
SELF-SUSTAINED CHAIN
REACTION
1 neutron for subsequent
fission, and
1 neutron + U 235 → η neutrons ⇒ (η -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 + γ
Np 239 + β− + γ
Pu 239 + β− + γ
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 Unattractive
(U) Facility
Fuel-fabrication related misuse or Unattractive

diversion (U, Pu) Canisters
Reprocessing-related misuse or Unattractive

diversion (Pu)
Breakout or abrogation (U, Pu) Iran, N. Korea, Israel, Pakistan:
Enrichment with U feedstock Very Attractive
Reprocessing reactor fresh*/spent fuel
*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 Energy Use Emissions

Gaseous diffusion (past) Large High Largest
Centrifuge (current) Smaller Lower Small
Laser (MLIS) (future?) Smallest Lowest Small
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 FACILITY-
BASED FISSILE MATERIAL (U, Pu)
ACQUISITION
• Inputs: LEU (UO2), Pu (PuO2)
• Outputs: Reactor Fuel Bundles
Fuel
• 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 REPROCESSING-
BASED FISSILE MATERIAL (Pu)
ACQUISITION
• Facility Separates Spent Fuel into Streams of
Plutonium
LaHague
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 cathode-
based (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
Control rods Generator
Generator
Pump
Turbine
Reactor
Pump Reservoir
Cooling water
Water
Condensor
Photo of Surry nuclear power plant has been removed due to copyright restrictions.
Adelaide
Photo of Adelaide desalination plant removed due to copyright restrictions.
Desalination Plant
Jubail Desalination Plant
Photo by jonrawlinson on Flickr.

Types of Uranium Deposits (tonnes)
Unspecified 3%
Others 8% Unconformity-contact 12%
Metasomatic 12%
Volcanic 4% Sandstone 28%
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
<500 500 - 1,000 1,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 100,000 >100,000 Total
Original Grade
< 0.03 3 9 65 32 6 115
0.03 - 0.10 13 26 96 31 6 172
0.10 - 1.00 33 106 282 89 7 517
1.00 - 5.00 5 3 13 10 0 31
> 500 0 0 1 0 2 3
Grand Total 54 144 457 162 21 838
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,
removed due to copyright restrictions.
1986, Knoxville, TN
Photo by Frank Hoffman, U.S. Department of Energy.
Uranium Enrichment Process

Cascade Cold trap for product
UF6 is enriched by
Enriched UF6 is cooled and collected
K-27 Uranium enrichmentHomogenization
repeated processing
in centrifuges.
plant,
Enriched
vessel
in a solid state, and then it is heated
UF is heated
and sent to the product cylinder vessel
6
to a liquid state, homogenized,
Feed Cylinder in a gaseous state. and vaporized to be transformed
(48Y cylinder) into product cylinders.
Feed cylinder vessel Centrifuge Tails cylinder vessel Product cylinder vessel Product cylinder
Natural UF6 is heated, Depleted UF6 is cooled Enriched UF6 is cooled to a (30B cylinder)
Enriched UF6 is cooled to
vaporized, and sent to and collected in a solid solid state, and collected.
a solid state and colected.
cascade. state.
GASEOUS DIFFUSION
CASCADES
Gaseous Diffusion Stage
Barrier
Low pressure
Enriched
stream
High pressure Depleted

feed stream stream
Low pressure

URENCO’S 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
3 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 don’t 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)

Doesn’t produce CO2 ?
80
Is safe against major nuclear 70

60
accidents? 50
40
30
Don't Know 20
10
Fuel is abundant? 0
Nuclear Long term Contribute to Fuel is
safety waste global warming abundant More research
Yes No Don't Know
Opponents
Don’t like nuclear or large scale.
Too much spending on fusion, could be better spent on other options.
Fusion doesn’t 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 Yield from

8 62
( 28 58
Ni, 26 Fe, 56
26Fe ) are the nuclear fission
most tightly bound, with
Binding energy per nuclear
particle (nucleon) in MeV
a binding energy of ~8.8

MeV per nucleon.
6 Elements heavier
Yield from nuclear
than iron can yield

fusion
energy by nuclear
fission.
4
2
Average mass
of fission fragments 235
is about 118. U
50 100 150 200

Mass Number, A

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
1+ 6 = 1T3 + 2He4
0n 3Li
(Net Reaction is 1D2 + 3Li6 = 2 2He4)

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: 2 + 3Li6 = 2He4 + 2He4
1D (+
Energy)
Li is plentiful in the earth’s 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.

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 Coulomb Scattering
energy, the nuclei are D - T Fusion
Cross-Section (m2)
D - D Fusion
much more likely to
scatter elastically than to 10-28
fuse!
Multiple scatterings
thermalize the constituent 10-30
particles.
At the energies involved,
10-32
matter becomes fully 1 10 100 1000
ionized  plasma. Deuteron Energy (keV)
10 keV ~ 100,000,000 oC

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)

Plasmas Are Ubiquitous In Nature
Most of the visible universe is Photos from NASA/MPIA, Mircea Madau on Wikimedia
composed of plasma Commons, Javier Giménez and Paul Jonusaitis on Flickr.

Essential Properties Of Plasmas
Very hot (minimum 5 eV; 60,000°K)

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.

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 α
particles (charged, so they are
confined by the magnetic field)
Total stored energy ( Joules)

τ E (sec) ≡
Heating rate (Watts)

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

3nT
Loss Power = + n 2 R(T )
τE
For steady state, Fusion Power = Loss Power
3nT
n 2 F (T ) = + n 2 R(T ) A quantitative statement of
τE
the requirements for good
nτ E F(T ) = 3T + nτ E R(T ) confinement and high
3T temperature
nτ E = = G( T )
F(T ) − R(T )

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 τE ~ 5-10
sec
Next step is ITER, a
burning plasma
experiment.

Approaches To Fusion Energy
Gravitational Confinement (300 W/m3)

In a deep gravitational well, even fast
particles are trapped.
Very slow: τE ~ 106 years, burn-up time = Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space
1010 years 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 Courtesy of Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory. Used with permission.
energy source.
Magnetic Confinement (107 W/m3)

Uses the unique properties of ionized
particles in a magnetic field
Image by Argonne National Laboratory on Flickr.

Gyro-motion Of Charged Particles Enables
Magnetic Confinement
mV⊥ c mT
Gyro-radius ρ = ∝
qB B
eB
Gyro-frequency ωc =
mc
Electrons
At B = 5T, T = 10keV
_
ρe = 0.067 mm
ions
ρi = 2.9 mm +

R/ ρi > 1,000
ωe = 8.8 x 1011 rad/sec (µwaves) Ionized particles are deflected by
the Lorentz force and bent into
ωi = 4.8 x 108 rad/sec (FM radio)
circular orbits.

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.

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 + Maxwell’s equations
Particle sources
∂f
+ v ⋅ ∇f +
q
m [E + v × B ]⋅ ∇ v f = C( f ) + S( f )
∂t
convection convection in
in space 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

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 (ρ/R<<1) and good time resolution (τA/τE,
τC/τE << 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

Progress Is Paced By Hardware And Algorithm
Development
1016
Burning Plasma
Integrated Simulation
GK Full Torus
1014 Virtual Disruption
Virtual Disruption
(adiabatic electrons)
Memory (Bytes)
GK Full Torus
Virtual Edge
(w/ electron dynamics)
1012
GK Flux
Tube
1010
1010 1012 1014 1016

Computational Speed (Flops)
NERSC (1995) NERSC (1997) NERSC (2002) NLCF (2006)

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)

Some Of The Engineering Challenges
Very large, high-field, superconducting magnets

1
Mechanical and thermal stresses
Curies/Watt (Thermal Power)

Nuclear Fission
Proximity to high neutron flux 10-2 Light Water
Reactor
Material Issues
10-4 Fusion
First Wall Vanadium
Alloys Fusion
▫ Power handling 10-6 Ferritic Steel
▫ Erosion – high energy and Level of Coal Ash

particle fluxes 10-8 Fusion
Silicon Carbide
▫ No tritium retention Composites
10-10
Structural components – low activation required
1 10 100 1000 1000
Blanket/Shield Years After Shutdown 0
Protect coils from neutron flux Courtesy of Marc Beurskens. Used with permission.
Need tritium breeding ratio above 1

Heating and current drive sources
Steady state – high availability required

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
Please see Lawson, J. D. "Some Criteria for a Useful
harder and of less military Thermonuclear Reactor." U.K. Atomic Energy Research
value than anticipated Establishment, December 1955, GP/R 1807.
1958: Geneva conference – 1st

World’s Fair of fusion research
1958-1968 V. Slow progress

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 Image remove due to copyright restrictions.
Please see Fig. 4 in Greenwald, M., et al. "Energy
confinement regimes
Confinement of High-Density Pellet-Fueled Reactors
discovered in the Alcator C Tokamak." Physical Review Letters
53 (July 1984): 352-355.
1983: Alcator-C reaches
Lawson number for
confinement

Historical Interlude (3)
>1990:
First DT experiments
in JET (EU) and
TFTR (US)
Advanced diagnostic
systems deployed,
providing
unprecedented Photos of the Large Helical Device, National Institute for
measurements Fusion Science, Japan removed due to copyright restrictions.
Simulations advance
and provide accurate
predictions of some
nonlinear
phenomena
The return of the
Stellarator

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 für 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.

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

ITER Site: Adjacent To Existing Lab
Pfusion 500MW
Q > 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 Represents A Substantial Scale-Up
Normalized Confine ent (Measured)

ITER
JET
ASDEX-U
COMPASS-D
Graph comparing normalized confinement of multiple fusion
reactors has been removed due to copyright restrictions.
0 2 4 6 8
Major Radius (m)

Major Scientific And Technological Issues For ITER
Scaling of edge pedestal and plasma transport with normalized size

An ITER scale experiment can operate with ρi/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

On Beyond ITER
(Ambitious) plans are in place to have a demonstration power

reactor on line by 2035
US 35 year plan (2003)
EU “fast track” plan (2004)
In parallel with ITER
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

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.

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.

Some Cost Comparisons For Energy Sources
20
lower 100% Decommissioning
upper O&M cost
15 80% Capital cost
coe(€cents/kWh)
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.

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
We’re poised to take a major step, an experiment to

demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of
fusion energy

References
H. Bethe, “Energy Production in Stars”, Phys. Rev. 1939

“The FIRE Place”, D. Meade, http://fire.pppl.gov
ITER, http://www.iter.org
PSFC, http://www.psfc.mit.edu
The U.S. Fusion R&D Program, PCAST, Executive Office of the
President of the United States,1995
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-
95- fusion.pdf

The End

What Are The World’s 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: World’s energy costs approaching $10 Trillion/year

Why Are Cost Estimates Similar? (Except for Fuel)
Image removed due to copyright restrictions.

Please see Fig. 4 in Maisonnier, D., et al. "Annexe
6: Plant Model C." A Conceptual Study of Commercial
Fusion Power Plants. Final Report of the European Fusion
PPCS, April 13, 2005, EFDA-RP-RE-5.0.

Lithium compound Blanket
Not to Scale !
Li
Deuterium T
Plasma T
Vacuum DTn
Helium (non-radioactive ash)
Primary fuels DT, He
4He 4He 4He 4He

Fuel processing
Lithium
Turbine
Heat exchanger
Generator
Steam generator

Please see Fig. 12 in Maisonnier, D., et al.
Please see Fig. 7 in Cook, I., et al. Safety and
A Conceptual Study of Commercial Fusion Power
Environmental Impact of Fusion. April 2001, EFDA-S-RE-1.
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
Reactor
ITER
500 MW
15 MW JET
Resistive-pulsed Superconducting
Tore Supra

ITER Construction Schedule

Magnetic Confinement In Toroidal Devices
Solution 1: Torus solves the end-loss

+++++
Ä
problem
Ä Ä
Bt Ä
Ä E×
×B Problem 2: In a simple toroidal field, particle
Ä
_ _E__ Å
_
drift
drifts lead to charge separation
∆B B
Bp
Hoop Solution 2: Add poloidal field, particles
Stress sample regions of inward and outward drift.
Bt
Problem 3: Hoop stress from unequal
magnetic and kinetic pressures.
Bp
Solution 3: Add vertical field, to counteract

Jt
Bt
hoop stress.
Bz
Magnetic confinement experiments are
variations on this theme.

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, Ψ = const.
Vertical ∇B drift averages to zero as particle follows helical field
To lowest order, particles are “stuck” on flux surfaces

Two Strategies To Create This Configuration
Tokamak Stellarator
Poloidal field from current in Poloidal field from external coils

the plasma itself. Intrinsically steady-state
Axisymmetric – good Non-axisymmetric – good
confinement confinement hard to achieve
Current is source of instability More difficult to build

Progress Has Been Made By Dividing Up The Problem
Principally By Time Scale
SLOW MHD
CYCLOTRON PERIOD MICRO-
INSTABILITY, ENERGY CONFINEMENT, τE
Ωce-1 Ωci-1 TURBULENCE
ISLAND GROWTH
CURRENT DIFFUSION
10-10 10-8 10-6 10-4 10-2 100 102 104 SEC.
PARTICLE COLLSIONS, τC
ELECTRON TRANSIT, τT GAS EQUILIBRATION
WITH VESSEL WALL
FAST MHD INSTABILITY,
SAWTOOTH CRASH
RF: Gyrokinetics: Extended MHD: Transport Codes:

wave-heating micro-turbulence device scale stability discharge time-
and current-drive scale

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

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
We collaborate with
more than 40 other
universities and labs:
Research sponsored by U.S. Department of domestic and
Energy 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

Plasma Turbulence Simulation
Ion gyro-scale turbulence

Note period of linear growth
Saturation via self-generated “zonal flows”

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)

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.

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
Carbon Management
Hussein Abdelhalim
Mark Artz
Major Carbon Emission Factors
Electricity
Power generation
Fossil Fuels
Electricity and heating make up nearly 50% of carbon
emissions at 3.6 giga
gigatons
tons carbon dioxide per
dioxide per 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% = 2.4 3.1 1.8 7.0 7.2 1.3 1.0
Transportation 0
21
0 6 0
3
0 9 0
22
34
Production Deforestation and
5
29 20
62
land-use change 5
Syngas 83 29
18
26 17
21
Tar Sands
Consumption
Consumption
Agriculture 20
40 45 47 49
54
Transportation 6 4
Vehicles Industry and waste
Electricity and heat
7
5
5
6
2
Brazil Indonesia India China United Japan Germany

Cars, Planes States
* Carbon sinks are not shown
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.
In the U.S. transportation accounts for nearly 30% of

carbon emissions at 2 gigatons per year.
Discussion Areas
Facilitate a class discussion on the following topics:
Electricity Generation
Driving Individual Behavioral Changes

Discussion Guidelines
Applied loosely
No more than 3 comments per participant
Try to limit length of response to 3 minutes

Electricity Generation
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
What incentives should we use to allow these

technologies to compete with coal and other carbon
emitting electricity p
emitting electricity production methods?
roduction methods?
Goal
Develop a global strategy to allow carbon free sources to
compete.
Considerations
Economic Impact
More costly electricity
Climate policy during a
recession?
Loss of Natural
Natural
Advantage
Countries with large

coal reserves
U.S., China, India
Pressure to move to
unregulated countries
Develop a Global Strategy
1. United States 5. Developing world

• Recession • Cheap energy
• Large coal reserves
6. Canada
2. France • Consumes large amounts
•
• 80% nuclear
nuclear electricity
electricity of natural gas producing
oil from tar sands
3. China
7. Sasol in South Africa
• Large coal dependence
• Syngas liquid fuel
4. Illinois production
• Large coal reserves • 71 million tons of carbon
emissions
ClassGenerated Ideas
1. United States 5. Developing world

• Kyoto Protocol • Want clean energy because most
• Commit to a global plan averse to temperature changes
• Government incentives for renewable • Clean development mechanism
of Kyoto Protocol
2. France • Direct investment of projects
• Adoption of more nuclear facilities
6. Canada
• Financing more facilities
• Look into nuclear and carbon
•
• Slowly add a few plants sequestration to mitigate
sequestration to mitigate effects
effects
• Combination of financing and of carbon emissions
subsidizing
7. Sasol in South Africa
3. China • N/A
• Keep coal cheap because of rising
economic situation
• Loose cap & trade Overall Picture:
• Subsidizing renewable by government
• Increased regulations: federal
4. Illinois vs. local governments
• Budget towards R&D towards clean coal • Time scale, triggers and
technologies
involvement
• Promote use of coal but mitigate its
effect
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 2 Solutions, Alex Shih
Results from Ecological Footprint Calculator courtesy of Earthday.org. Used with permission.
Graph by Carbon Mitigations Initiative, Princeton University.
A portfolio of options are needed!

Source: Lecture 17, Prof. Green

Question
What incentives should be used to encourage
individuals and businesses to reduce 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 your car gets 25 mpg and you reduce your annual driving from
12,000 miles to 10,000 miles, yyou will

ou will save 1800 pounds
1800 pounds of CO2.
CO2.
If your new car gets 40 mpg instead of 25, you will reduce carbon
emissions by 3300 pounds.
Home appliances, heating, and cooling
If you live in a cold climate and you superinsulate your walls and
ceilings, you can save 5.5 tons of CO2 per year.
Source: www.powerscorecard.org/reduce_energy.cfm
Develop a Global Strategy
4. What are some actions we can take

1. How should cities encourage their today to reduce carbon emissions that
residents to use public transit? have personal financial incentives?
2. How should the government 5. Can a government impose an
encourage its citizens to purchase individual carbon rationing system
hybrid vehicles and other that is fair? If so, how would it work?
appliances/electronics that reduce
carbon emissions?
6. What incentives should governments
give to large corporations for their
3. How should consumers become more energy conservation practices?
educated on home energy
conservation?
7. Discuss other options and strategies
not presented here.
ClassGenerated Ideas
1. How should cities encourage their residents to use 4. What are some actions we can take today to
public transit? reduce carbon emissions that have personal
• Price increases financial incentives?
• Parking • Timers and thermostats
• Fuel • Off vs. standby
• Decrease public transportation costs
5. Can a government impose an individual
• Public transportation reliability carbon rationing system that is fair? If so, how
• ETA would it work?
• Range of stops • Effectively higher taxes
• Driving restrictions •
• Cost association
• Population distributions
6. What incentives should governments give to
• Parking centers for public transportation large corporations for their energy
conservation practices?
2. How should the government encourage its citizens • Rewards, instead of penalties, for energy
to purchase hybrid vehicles and other conservation (i.e. lower tax bracket)
appliances/electronics that reduce carbon
emissions? • Cost association
• Stricter emission standards
7. Discuss other options and strategies not
• Reduced import tariffs for hybrids presented here.
• Stricter building codes to adhere to at
3. How should consumers become more educated on the beginning
home energy conservation?
• Other GHGs like fluorocarbons (i.e.
• Standard for comparison HFCs and CFCs)
• Independent
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 can’t
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 earth’s
atmosphere
– Varies with seasons
• On planet’s surface effected by

geometry and filtering.
• Photosynthetically active
region (PAR): Photosynthesis ~ 1% efficient
~ 400-700 nm
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
– Earth’s 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)
Carbohydrates Lignin
H OH
H O
HO
HO OH
H OH
H H
D-glucose
Cellulose
Mostly cellulose & hemicellulose
Fats
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
2.0
quadrillion btu
1.5
Biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel)

1.0
0.5
Waste
0.0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
year
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.
Electricity,
Biomass Gasifier Syngas: CH4, H2,
800°C CO Gasoline/diesel,
Steam or oxygen H2 Ethanol
CH1.5O0.67 + 0.33 H2O → CO + 1.08 H2
wood steam syngas

∆Hr = +101 kJ/mol
700-900°C, 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: Güssing 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 CH4
Methanation
H2 CO2
reactor
H2O
Methanation
∆Hr = -127 kJ/mol
CO + 1.08 H2 → 0.52 CH4 + 0.48 CO2 + 0.04 H2O 400°C, 10-20 atm
Ni catalyst
CO
H2 WGS H2
reactor CO2
H2O
Water gas shift

∆Hr = -41 kJ/mol
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 400-500°C, 1 atm
Iron oxide catalyst
Source: F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland;

& Cat Comm 4 215-221 (2003).
Syngas: Diesel and alcohols can be made via
Fischer-Tropsch process.
• Coal-to-liquids and gas-to-
liquids technology
– Germany; South Africa CO
H2
• “Ideal” reaction:
(2n+1) H2 + n CO → CnH2n+2 + n H2O F-T 200-350°C

reactor Exothermic
• Many simultaneous
reactions
– alcohols, alkenes, etc.
Alkanes (gasoline, diesel)
Alcohols
• Selectivity
– Catalyst, temperatures,
pressures, H2/CO ratio
Syngas can be used as a biological feedstock.
• Hybrid
thermochemical /
biological process
• Syngas produced
from biomass
• Syngas
fermented into
Image removed due to copyright restrictions. ethanol
Please see descriptions of the INEOS Bio Ethanol process.
• Ethanol from the

whole plant,
rather than only
sugars
– Both cellulose &
lignin gasified;
most other
cellulosic
ethanol doesn’t
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)
– Exception: lignin
Figure removed for copyright reasons. See Figure 10.7 in

Tester, J. W., et al. Sustainable Energy: Choosing Among cellulose, CH4, CO2
Options. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2005. protein, etc.
Bacterial Methanogenic
hydrolysis bacteria
sugars, acetic acid,

CH4 50-75% amino acids, etc. NH4
CO2 25-50%
N2 0-10% Acidogenic Acetogenic
bacteria bacteria
H2 0-1%
H2S 0-3
O2 0-2 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
Solar
Liquid fuels offer superior energy
6 storage and transportability.
Wind
Geothermal
5 Hydroelectric
Biomass
10 btu
4 hydroelectric
15
3 40
1.5 diesel
2
lithium ion
gasoline
1 biomass 30
ethanol
1.0 propane
0 NiMH
MJ/L
MJ/L
20
49
04
54
59
64
69
74
79
84
89
94
99
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
0.5
NiCd
Biomass is currently the largest source of 10 lead acid
compressed air
renewable energy in the US and the world, vanadium bromide
batteries
and the only renewable source capable of vanadium redox
0
0.0
producing fuels with current technology.
0 10 0.2 20 0.430 40
0.6 50
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
Biomass contains more oxygen and is
structurally different from fuels.
H OH
H O O
HO O
HO OH
H OH
O
H H O
D-glucose
O
Carbohydrates Fats Proteins Cellulose Lignin
H2 CH4
Hydrogen Natural Gas Propane Gasoline Diesel

Methane LPG / NGL Petrol
Autogas Naptha
Lignin and Protein images, public domain from Wikimedia Commons.

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 • Low • High

[Lignocellulose: [Gasoline: 43.4 MJ/kg]
Density
~1020 MJ/kg]
Moisture • High • No moisture content

[Corn: 15% moisture
Content delivered]
Oxygen • High • No oxygen content

[Often 1040% oxygen] [<1% oxygen]
Content
• Generally not compatible • Combust efficiently in

Compatibility with existing engines, existing engines, boilers,
boilers, and turbines and turbines
Biomass contains more oxygen and is
structurally different from fuels.
H OH
H O O
HO O
HO OH
H OH
O
H H O
D-glucose
O
Carbohydrates Fats Proteins Cellulose Lignin
H2 CH4
Hydrogen Natural Gas Propane Gasoline Diesel

Methane LPG / NGL Petrol
Autogas Naptha
Lignin image from wikimedia foundation, peptide image from http://www.steve.gb.com.

Most firstgeneration biofuels are imperfect
fuel replacements.
Ethanol Biodiesel DME “Synthetic”

natural gas
O
OH OCH3 O
CH4
26.9 MJ/kg 37.5 MJ/kg 28.9 MJ/kg 49.5 MJ/kg
Gasoline Diesel Propane Natural gas
CH4
43.4 MJ/kg 42.8 MJ/kg 46.3 MJ/kg 49.5 MJ/kg

Ethanol: the original biofuel.
-7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000
~7000 B.C. 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000
Oldest
evidence of
ethanol 1908
1796
fermentation
~800 A.D. Model T
(pottery in Lowitz produces
China) Ethanol first absolute (pure) runs on
distilled in ethanol ethanol
Middle East
1859 1885
Drake drills first Daimler’s 1st
oil well in gasoline-
Pennsylvania powered car
Ethanol is made by yeast when no oxygen is
present.
3000
If oxygen is available, cells use it

2500
C6H12O6 + 6 O2 → 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + (36 or 38) ATP
ustion, kJ/mol
2000
Without oxygen, cells salvage a little energy with fermentation
combustion,
C6H12O6 → 2 C2H5OH + 2 CO2 + 2 ATP
enthalpy of comb
1500
Fuel upgrading
1000
H OH
H O
HO
HO OH 500
H OH OH
H H
Ethanol
D-glucose
0
16 MJ/kg, 27 MJ/kg, Glucose Ethanol
solid liquid
Ethanol processing is much more complex than
fermentation.
Liquification
Liquification &
Milling Saccharification Fermentation Purification
Corn Harvest Transportation 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)
Effect of common
system boundaries,
Corn Iowa State (1992) coproduct credit
0 10 20 30 40 Pimentel (2005)
MJ/kg EtOH MIT (2006)
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

Machinery
Net Energy Ratio
Seeds
Electricity
Bij Cij
Pesticide 1.6 kg CO2
Lime Ammonia GWP: 2.2

N2O kg CO2eq
Production
P-K Bij Cij
CH4
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nat Gas Corn
Irrigation Production
Electricity
Fossil Fuels Bij Cij 0 kg
Corn
3.4 kg
0 5 Nat Gas Nat Gas Ethanol
EtOH
MJ/kg EtOH 17 MJ 13.5 MJ Production
1 kg
Electricity Electricity Feed
1.3 MJ .95 kg
1.8 MJ

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

O 15 3 HC
H 2OH H 3CO HC 14 OH O CH
OCH 3
O CH 24
7
O HO OH O HO
O O H 2 COH
O 13
HC CH 2 HC O
O O H 3CO CH 2OH
HO O HC CH H COH
O O OH
H 2C CH O CH
HO OH O H O H 2COH
HO CH
OCH 3 HC O 23
H3CO 8 OCH 3
CHO
O HOH2C OH H 3CO CH 2OH
12
CO 2H O
O CH H 3CO 17
OH H
CH O
OHC CH CH 2OH
H HO CH
O H 2COH
H 2OH 9 O CH
H 3C O HC
H COH
• Glucose units • Xylose, glucose, • Phenylpropane units

[fermentable] galactose, mannose, [not fermentable]
etc., units
• Structure: • Structure:
[not as easily
– β-(1-4)-glycosidic – highly polymerized
fermentable]
linkages – cement-like role in
– much hydrogen • Structure: cells
bonding – branched; [difficult to break
– linear; crystalline amorphous down]
[difficult to break [easy to break down]
• ~21 MJ/kg
down]
• ~17 MJ/kg
• ~17 MJ/kg
Cellulosic ethanol processing requires
pretreatment and burns lignin.

Energy in Ethanol Production
(Fermentation route.)
Total Ethanol
Yeast Distill/Dry
Heat, Acid Detox Enzyme (Cellulase) (5C fermenters) Electricity
Distribution
Beer Other
Pretreatment Saccharification Fermentation Corn
Stover
0 10 20 30 40
MJ/kg EtOH
• No DDGS: no drying animal feed.

Stover
Ethanol Ethanol • Lignin has no value: burned to
Milling Conversion
Purification power distillation column.
• Lower ag inputs than corn
production.
Ligno
cellulose Harvest/gather Transportation Conversion Ethanol

Corn ethanol limited by land requirements;
cellulose more available than corn sugars
Corn ethanol DOE/USDA Billion-ton study
• To replace 1/3 transportation • 1.4 billion (dry) tons can be sustainably
harvested annually: energy content equal to
petroleum with corn ethanol: ~1/3 of US petroleum consumption
~320 million acres corn • Residuals, forestry, energy crops: largely
• Total ag land: ~450 million acres 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
+3 CH3OH
3 OCH3
O biodiesel
O CH KOH
HO CH2
O
O CH2
HO CH
triglyceride
HO CH2
glycerol
Biodiesel processing is fairly mild.
Mild temperatures: 50-80°C

PFD from DOE EERE. Atmospheric pressure
Biodiesel is a pretty good fuel. Where does it
come from? Why don’t 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 year’s food price shocks and food
riots have raised awareness of the issues…
Most biomass conversion techniques are put in
two main camps.

Biological Thermochemical
– Using microbes to convert – Using traditional chemical

biomass to fuels processing methods
• Pros • Pros
– Can make chemicals with – Often doesn’t require
high specificity chemical specificity of
– Works well in aqueous feedstocks
media at reasonable – Higher
– Higher throughput
throughput
temperatures and • Cons
pressures
– Extreme T, P may be
• Cons needed
– Requires specific chemical – Subject to catalyst fouling,
inputs (sugar) inorganic precipitation
– Low throughput • Examples
• Examples: – Biodiesel, syngas, CH4, H2,
– Ethanol, CH4, butanol diesel, gasoline
Advanced fermentation techniques may
produce better fuels from cheaper feedstocks.
• Better fuels • Better feedstock utilization
– butanol, propanol, etc. – Cheaper enzymes
– high lipids – Lynd’s singlepot technique
– hydrocarbon excretion – Syngas: H2, CO
Biomass to Biofuels using Microorganisms
Cellular Metabolism: Ethanol

Sugars Set of biochemical reactions that Butanol
Glycerol a cell uses to sustain “life” (growth, Biodiesel
Syngas cell maintenance, protection from Hydrocarbons
Fatty Acids competitors)
competitors) Hydrogen
Etc. Etc.
Feedstock Conversion Technology Fuel
Courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcuschamer. Used with permission.
Slide courtesy of Daniel Klein-Marcushamer.
What is Metabolic Engineering?
e5 e8 H e9
C e F e7
e1 e2 6 e10
Sout Sin A e3 G I P P
e4 e14 e12 e11

B K J
e13
L
Cell
ei = Enzyme i

What is Metabolic Engineering?:
Gene overexpression and deletion
e e8 H e9
X5
C e F e7
e1 e2 6 e10
eX
4 e14 e12 X e11
B K J
e13
L
Cell
ei = Enzyme i

What is Metabolic Engineering?:
Introduction of heterologous genes
e5 e8 H e9
C e F e7
e1 e2 6 e10
e4 e e14 e12 e11
15
B D K J
e16 e13
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 Glucose Ethanol Fatty acids
• Early stage technology
• technology Various catalytic technologies
– Many catalysts subject to

fouling with whole
biomass streams
H2 H2 H2
– Usually combine catalysis HMF CO2 CO2
with pyrolysis or pre Alkanes
treatment/separation.
Examples: Dumesic (Wisconsin), Schmidt (Minn.), Huber (U.Mass.), Brown (Ames), Roman (MIT)
Pyrolysis oils are crude condensation products
of ‘cooked’ biomass.
• Pyrolysis: decomposition Fast Pyrolysis

or transformation of a • Short residence times
compound caused by (seconds)
• Atmospheric pressure
heat (AHD)
• Harder to refine oil
• Rapid heating of biomass • Energetic losses to
in the absence of oxygen
oxygen evaporation
• Various complex oils and

organics formed: needs Hydrothermal
further refining Liquefaction
• Highpressure (>40 atm)
• Options for oils produced:
• Longer residence times

– Combustion in stationary (minutes)
generators • Higher efficiency possible
• Easier to refine oil
– Upgrading
(hydrodeoxygenation)
– Gasification
(concentration method)
Fast pyrolysis makes biooils at atmospheric
pressure in a few seconds.
Fast pyrolysis
• Often uses fluidized beds

of sand or catalyst as Raw
biomass
heat transfer medium.
• Produces oil (containing 450-600°C

Anaerobic
Anaerobic
up to 15
1520%
20% moisture), heating O2-free
heating
heating
char, and gases. res. time: seconds
• Feedstocks need to be
predryed to around 10% Pyrolysis oils Steam
moisture Gases
Charcoal
Char & Tar
Another approach: Hydrothermal technologies can have

higher efficiencies by avoiding evaporating water.
�Hvap,w
• Most energy inefficiencies Agriculture

in biofuels production result & transport Distillation Drying
from water evaporation Electricity Liquefaction

– Ethanol: distillation, drying 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
– Gasification: predrying
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:
~330°C, ~100 bar
• Demonstration on onion
peels Wood conversion to “biocrude” at
– (high lignocellulosic, high 340°C.
sulfur)
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.
Oxygen can be removed as water.
• ‘Biocrudes’ typically more C6H9O4 + 2.5 H2 → C6H12 + 2 H2O
viscous and higher in
oxygen than conventional
petroleum HDO of HDS, HDN,
biocrude HCK or
petroleum
• Hydrogen is used to break
Equipment, (same) (same)
up and remove oxygen plant
from the biomolecules
Pressures 310 MPa 310MPa
• Adapted from other
techniques in refining:
Catalysts Co, Ni, Mo Co, Ni, Mo
– hydrodesulfurization
(sulfided) (sulfided)
(HDS)
– hydrodenitrogenation
Size 10,000 5,000 –
(HDN)
tonnes/a 1,000,000
– hydrocracking (HCK) tonnes/a
H2 340730 200800
consumption Nm3/tonne 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 C6H9O4 + 2.5 H2 → C6H12 + 2 H2O
propose expanding biomass
resource by coupling to
renewable H2 source.
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
•
• May vastly increase the
Gasification." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 46
amount of recoverable (December 19, 2007): 8863-8874.
resource (venting H2O
instead of CO2)
• Additionally, can couple with

waste heat from H2 source.
IECR 46(26) 8863 2007.
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
1st Stage
Stage I: 250°C Stage II: 500°C
Oil
Maceration Hydrothermal process to Thermal cracking to
pretreatment remove fatty acids from decarboxylate fatty acids
glycerol backbone. into hydrocarbons.
Fertilizer Diesel and

Organic
Minerals gasoline
waste
Water 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.
Hydrothermal technologies can be used to gasify
directly.
supercritical
high- temperature
400 fluid
gasification
gasification
catalytic
350
300
PSI process H2 production
ure, bar
250
sure,
200 quid
liliquid
Press
Pres
HTU process
150
100 CWT process

50
vapor
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Temperature, °C
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. Frédéric
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. Frédéric
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
Images removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see Fig. 2 and 3c in

• Primarily sulfates: Elliott, Douglas C., et al. "Chemical Processing in High-Pressure Aqueous
Environments. 7. Process Development for Catalytic Gasification of Wet
– SEM w/
– w/
energy
energy Biomass Feedstocks." Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 43
dispersive xray
(2004): 1999-2004.
– XPS
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
Fuel
CO2 CH4
use
Manure SCWG H2O
Image by Pearson Scott Foresman

at the Open Clip Art Library.
N,P,K Concentrations are given in mg/kg on a dry basis. ND: not detected.

Hydrogen can be made from biomass via supercritical
water gasification at higher temperatures.
• H2rich gas produced

high H2,
• 600°C, 300 bar, lignocellulosic
material water
CH4,
CO2
alkaline catalyst
reactor
react or
• Labscale tests in 550-650°C
Germany and China 250-350 bar
KOH cat.
– 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.
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 1
Outline
• Technology overview
• Policy overview
11/18/10 www.ecologicliving.ca 2
Technologies for Higher Fuel
Economy
Credit for slides: Irene Berry
SM Mechanical Engineering / Technology and Policy, 2010
11/18/10 3
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
4
Range depends on the energy required at
the wheels and vehicle efficiency
2005 3.0-L Toyota Camry over UDDS drive cycle
Standby:
8%
Aero:
3%
Fuel Tank: 16% Rolling:

Engine Driveline
100% 4%
13%
Braking:
Driveline 6%
Engine Loss
Losses:
76%
3%
770%
100%
vehicle efficiency over

~ 165 5Wh/km
UDDS cycle: 13%
11/18/10
Performance depends on the peak power of
the vehicle
Limited region of high efficiency
90 Peak power
80

Power with wide open throttle 280 (30.6%)
70

260 (33%)
Engine power (kW)
60

) 350 (24.5%)
%
50

34
.3
bsfc (g/kWh) 0( 500 (17.1%)
Engine map of spark
25
40 (efficiency) ignition (SI) internal

310 (27.7%)
combustion engine
270 (31.8%)
30 400 (21.4%) (ICE)
20
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) Lowest efficiency is at low
Typical operating conditions loads and high speeds
on UDDS drive cycle
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Ehsani, Mehrdad, et al.

Modern Electric, Hybrid Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles: Fundamentals,
11/18/10 Theory, and Design. CRC Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780849331541.
So, we want to increase efficiency while

meeting design goals

90
80 Power with wide open throttle 280 (30.6%)
70
260 (33%)
1. Reduce load (energy required at
Engine power (kW)

60
350 (24.5%)
)
%
50 4.3
(3
the wheels) 40
bsfc (g/kWh)
(efficiency)
25
0
310 (27.7%)
500 (17.1%)
30 270 (31.8%) 400 (21.4%)
20
2. Increase powertrain efficiency 10
0
600 (14.3%) 700 (12.2%)
800 (10.7%)
1000 (8.57%)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Engine speed (rpm)
1. Increase efficiency of engine 90
80 Power with wide open throttle 280 (30.6%)
2. Shift engine operating points 70

260 (33%)
Engine power (kW)

60 350 (24.5%)
)
50 .3%
34
bsfc (g/kWh) 0(
3. Use smaller engine (downsize)

500 (17.1%)
25
(efficiency)
40 310 (27.7%)
270 (31.8%)
30 400 (21.4%)
20
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)

Theory, and Design. CRC Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780849331541.
11/18/10 7
[Ehsani et al 2004]
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 8
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 9
These engine technologies increase engine
efficiency and/or power
Technology Mechanism Efficiency gain

Optimizes efficiency for
Variable valve timing both high and low engine 5%
speeds
Increases low load
Cylinder deactivation 7.5%
efficiency
Turbo- or super Increases engine power
7.5%
charge per size: allows downsizing
More efficient fuel delivery
Direct Injection 5-10%
and combustion
Advanced after- Allows engine to produce N/A
treatment more emissions
www.fueleconomy.gov
11/18/10 10
These transmission technologies allow
better control of engine speed

CV transmission Optimize engine speed 6%
Dual-clutch
Optimize engine speed 7%
transmission
www.fueleconomy.gov
11/18/10 11
Different combustion cycles also offer
efficiency improvements

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%
Aero:
3%
Fuel Tank: 16% 13% Rolling:

Engine Driveline
100% 4%
Braking:
Driveline 6%
Engine Loss
Losses:
76%
3%
Full Hybrid Reduces via Regenerative Braking

engine downsizing Reduces
11/18/10 13
shifts engine operating
Hybrid optimization shifts the engine

operating points to higher efficiency

Torque with wide

open throttle
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Power (kW)
250 982
Use electric power to assist
Brake mean effective pressure (kPa)

sfc
200 (ghWh) 250 (34.3%) 785
(efficiency)
Engine only
Brake torque (Nm)
260 (33.3%)
150 589
270 (31.89%) 280 (30.6%)
100 Use electric to 350 (24.5%) 393

load the engine 310 (27.7%)
to recharge
400 (21.4%)
500 (17.1%)
50 600 (14.3%)
196
Electric only
700 (12.4%) 800 (10.7%) 1000 (8.57%)
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Engine speed (rpm)

Theory, and Design. CRC Press, 2005. ISBN: 9780849331541.
[Ehsani et al 2004]
11/18/10 14
Hybrids and electric vehicles are classified
by degree of electrification
Plug-in
(kW of motor power)
Hybrid
Electric Power
Battery Electric
Electric
Vehicle (BEV)
Full Vehicle
Hybrid (PHEV)
Mild Can plug-in to

Hybrid Can have “electric
recharge
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 Disadvantages

• Electricity • Batteries
• Any energy source • Long charge times

• Potentially less emissions • High cost

• Single emissions source • Low energy content

• Electric drive relative to gasoline

• More energy efficient

• Limited range
• Higher low-speed torque • Concerns over life

• Lower operating costs

• Electric drive
• Less maintenance • Different operating and
driving feel
11/18/10 17
To compare different fuels, consider well-to
wheels energy and emissions
Well-to-Tank Tank-to-Wheel
~30% Efficient
~80% Efficient
~24% Efficient
~16% Efficient
~80% Efficient ~20% Efficient
Image from "Getting Around Without Gasoline." Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, 1995.
11/18/10 18
[http://www.nesea.org/]
Automotive Fuel Economy Policy in
the U.S.
Overview of Institutions and Policies

Federal State
DOT:
EPA: CARB:
Fuel Economy
GHG Standards GHG Standards
Standards
State
IRS: IRS:
Governments:
Fuel Taxes Gas Guzzler Tax
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 light-

duty* 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 2000 2010 2020 2030
11/18/10 22
The MPG Distortion
• MPG is inverse of metric that matters: fuel consumption 2025 Prop

Fuel Consumption (Gal/100mi) Range

4
2020 Mandate
3 EISA 2007
2025 Proposed
2 Range
1.7-2.2 gal/100mi
0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
11/18/10 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
World’s 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 California’s 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 29
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=15503
Vehicle GHG Standards

Electric vehicles
assumed to have zero
emissions, up to first
200,000-300,000
produced.
11/18/10 30
Gasoline Taxes
• 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
60
• Annual gasoline bill increases by ~$1000/year for new cars
• Annual gasoline bill increases by ~$1800/year for older cars
Cents per Gallon

50
40
30
State
20
10 Federal
0
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
• Fee + Rebate, purchase incentive system
• Greater cost certainty, less emissions certainty relative to CAFE
• Recently adopted in France, initial results promising
• Cap & Trade
• 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 -Rebound effect takes back

+Well-established ~10% of benefits, increases
other externalities
-Uncertain costs
-No incentive to exceed
standard
-Disparate impact on
manufacturers
Incentives +Cost certainty -Little experience
+Stimulates continuous -Reduced operating cost �
improvement rebound effect
Fuel Taxes +Drives reductions -Hits consumers hardest,

throughout system 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 Manufacturing Use of Disposal

Raw Materials Process Product
Recycle Wastes
Wastes Wastes 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 don’t

occur in just one step of a product’s lifecycle
– Carbon dioxide emissions from CoaltoLiquid
fuels.
• Optimizing one production step doesn’t 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: MacDonald’s Styrofoam or
paper?
Trees (natural?) Oil (bad?)
Chemicals (worse)
Paper (good ?)
Styrofoam (??)
Oil
Chlorine or
Peroxide
Pulp Benzene + C2H4 + etc.

Acid or Alkali
CFCs
CO2 Styrene
PCBs + Paper
Hard to recycle
Pentane
Dioxins
Plastic coating Polystyrene foam
Water
McD
Wastewater
Landfill Trash 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, air pollution, GHG emissions, wastes,
resource depletion, etc.
• For each portion of the lifecycle, estimate the
impacts of interest
• Assess overall tradeoffs, considering
uncertainties
• Identify major sources 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 • Important

steps Parameters
– Resource – Emissions
extraction/ – Useful work
production – Costs
– transport • Useful simplification
– Fuel/electricity – Most energy

production conversion facilities
– Distribution
nonfuel resource
use negligible.
– enduse
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 ‘cellulosic biofuel’
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, air pollution, GHG emissions, landuse
change, Food Versus Fuel?
• Assess overall tradeoffs, considering
uncertainties
• Identify major sources 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 –

won’t 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 • How do we determine

connected web of the necessary amount
individual processing of granularity?
steps each with their
– Only major steps?
own:
– Every subprocess?
– Energy balances
– Mass balances – Down to the last valve?
– Cash flows • This is a matter of
– Emissions identifying goals of
– Regulations analysis (think back
– … to SD lecture)
Key Issues
System Boundary
Biomass Harvest Transportation Conversion Fuel
• Scale Biomass availability

• Performance Energy balance
• Economics today and tomorrow
• transitioning from corn–based to
17
cellulosic fuel MIT
Simplified Lifecycle of Biofuel
Production
Energy Inputs to Corn Ethanol
Total Ethanol
Distill/Dry
Electricity
Distribution
Other
Corn
0 10 20 30 40
MJ/kg EtOH
Energy Inputs to Corn
Machinery
Seeds
Electricity
Pesticide
Lime
PK
Nitrogen
Irrigation
Fossil Fuels
0 5
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
Amoco (1989)
system boundaries,
coproduct credit
Iowa State (1992)
Pimentel (2005)
MIT (2006)
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
Net Energy Ratio

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, FischerTröpsch Diesel, MTG Gasoline)
– Other Alcohols (methanol, propanol,
butanol+)
– Dimethyl Ether
– Hydrogen?
Properties of possible fuels
Heat of
Molecular Density Lower Heating
Fuel Formula Vaporization
Weight (g/cm3) Value (MJ/kg)
(KJ/kg)
Methanol CH3OH 32.04 0.792 20 1103
Ethanol CH3CH2OH 46.07 0.785 26.9 840
Propanol CH3(CH2)2OH 60.1 0.8 30.5 790
Butanol CH3(CH2)3OH 74.14 0.81 33 580
MTG Gasoline CH1.85 ~110 0.75 44 350
Heat of
Molecular Density Lower Heating
Fuel
Formula Vaporization
Weight (g/cm3) Value (MJ/kg)
(KJ/kg)
DME
CH3OCH3 46.07 0.668 28.7 467
Fischer-
CH1.8 170 0.8 43 270

Tröpsch Diesel
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% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
A. Stark MIT 2008 Efficiency %

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% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Efficiency %
Fuel Integrability
Fuel Truck Rail Pipeline

Methanol Y Y N • A fuel’s properties will
Ethanol Y Y N
Mixed
Y Y N
dictate whether it is
Alcohol
MTG accepted into the
Synthetic Y Y Y
Gasoline current fuel
FT Diesel Y Y Y
DME Y Y Y/N infrastructure
• This will greatly
cost of cost of
shipping per shipping per impact the economics
methanol
liter 1000km
$0.050
GJ 1000km
$3.141
of distribution
ethanol $0.050 $2.185
MTG $0.003 $0.101
FTD $0.003 $0.095
DME $0.060 $3.130
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
CO NOx Particulates
methanol Slight reduction Significant reduction N/A
ethanol Slight reduction Significant reduction N/A
mixed alcohol Slight reduction Slight reduction N/A
MTG synthetic gasoline No change Slight increase N/A
FT Diesel Moderate reduction Moderate reduction Moderate reduction
DME No change 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 FischerTröpsch 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

Introduction to System Dynamics
• Jay Forrester and the Whirlwind Project
– 1946-1956: Semi Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE)
program and systems engineering
– coincident-current random-access magnetic computer memory
– 1956: Becomes Professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management
Photo by Aboh24 on Wikimedia Commons.

Introduction to System Dynamics
• The Early Days of System Dynamics (1956-

1969)
– Consulting with General Electric factory workforce
management
– Digital Equipment Corporation Board Member from
1957: issues of fast growth and collapse with high-
technology 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

– SD Basics
– World Dynamics

Fundamentals of System Dynamics
• Basics of System Dynamics Modeling

– A system of Differential Equations solved using
numerical techniques at a sequence of time-steps
with complex feedback relationships between system
variables
• Key Components are:
– Simulation model (not optimization model)
• Breaks down assumptions related to optimization
(rationality of decision-makers, monetized /
utilitarian value maximization)
• Often involves economic, technical AND social
phenomena


– Goal-seeking behavior that drives model decision-
making
• 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

– 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
Endogenous to Fuel prices
Technology
system: electricity
development demand, supply,
and innovation What should be
transmission
Exogenous to
electric grid
Weather
system?
and climate

– Variable separation into stocks (accumulation over time) and
flows (auxiliary variables)
– Feedback and delays: relationships between variables are non-
linear 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.
Drifting Goals
Balancing Loop 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


– SD Basics
– World Dynamics

SD Models and Energy
• Series of System Dynamic Models in Energy

– Early 1970s: development of FOSSIL1/FOSSIL2 displaces use
of “Project Independence Evaluation System” PIES
– 1978 ~ 1995, FOSSIL2/IDEAS (Integrated Dynamic Energy
Analysis Simulation) used widely for energy policy evaluation
– Mid-1990s, Energy Information Administration introduces
National Energy Modeling System to replace FOSSIL2 model
– Energy2020 developed to integrate FOSSIL2 with utility-specific
EPPAM SD Model
ELECTRIC3/ EPPAM4/CPAM/… WSU Models (Ford)
ENERGY2020 (Amlin/Backus)
WORLD 3 COAL2 FOSSIL1 FOSSIL2/IDEAS

(Meadows) (Naill) (Naill/Backus) (Naill/Wood)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

SD Models and Energy
• Energy2020 Basic Model

Structure
– Sectors: energy-supply,
Diagrams removed due to copyright restrictions.
energy-demand, pollution-
Please see Fig. 1.1, 3.6 in "Modeling of Greenhouse
accounting Gas Reduction Measures to Support the Implementation
of the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32):
– Scenario testing with
ENERGY 2020 Model Inputs and Assumptions." Systematic
thousands of policy levers Solutions, Inc., February 1, 2010.
– Includes both fossil-fuel and

renewable energy sources
– Includes industry, electricity,
transportation and other
energy uses
– Detailed historical data used
to calibrate model

Review of Some Models on Wind and Diffusion
• Electric sector
model for capacity
expansion
– Looks at shifting
electricity demand
profile and Image removed due to copyright restrictions.
generation asset mix Please see Fig. 15.8 in Vogstad, Klaus-Ole. "A System
Dynamics Analysis of the Nordic Electricity Market: The Transition
over time
from Fossil Fuelled Toward a Renewable Supply within a Liberalised
– Includes different Electricity Market." Doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology, December 2004.
time-scales of
interest (hours, days,
months and years)
– Includes endogenous
demand elasticity,
technology learning
and economies of
scale
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.


– SD Basics
– World Dynamics

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 economic-
based 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
– 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
Delta-Generation Capacity [MW]
2400
PTC Expirations 1900
1400
900
400
-100
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
US Denmark
1Wiser,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].
Revisiting wind energy: policy support for wind
Main Policy Categories In Place for Promotion of Wind

Energy Cases
Feed-In Tariffs (+ Added
Incentives) - Predominantly Germany,
12% Spain,
Europe
22% Portugal,
Standard / Quota (+ Penalties Denmark
/ Incentives / Certificates) -
20% Some use US and Europe
Colorado,
Standalone Incentives (Tax Illinois
Credits, Subsidies, Grants,
Premiums) - Predominantly US
California,
Feed-In Tariffs and Quota (+ Idaho
46% Added Incentives) -
Predominantly Eastern Europe
Data sources: IEA 1997, GWEC 2008, DSIRE 2009, AWEA 2009.

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

What’s 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
1
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 0.54
gasoline 12000 43
misconceptions about batteries
๏ not much has changed: not true!
๏ no Moore’s 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
๏ don’t pay for attributes you don’t 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 efficiency in
photovoltaics they still wouldn’t 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 won’t do:
here the whole is less than the sum of its parts
๏ smart grid requires rapid response capability
 colossal electric cache
August 13, 2003 August 14, 2003
9:21 p.m. EDT 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 field is woefully underfunded by government:

energy research in total $1.4B (2006) < ⅙ 1979 figure
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 Schrödinger, i.e., bring
quantum mechanics to battery engineering
 high-throughput computing screens candidate
materials before lab testing begins
๏ confine 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 don’t 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 floor
a modern aluminium smelter
Charles Martin Hall, USA

1886
Paul L.T. Héroult, France
15 m × 3 m × 1 km × 0.8 A⋅cm−2
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
Refractory
Electrolyte lining
Molten Antimony

on discharge
Mg(liquid)  Mg 2 + + 2 e -
Sb(liquid) + 3 e-  Sb3
liquid Molten Magnesium
refra
metal
Refractory
Electrolyte lining
battery Molten Antimony

21
cell section after cycling 48 h at 700°C
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 configuration is self-assembling

 expected to be scalable at low cost
24
Rejection criteria
Candidate electrode metals
H Non-metal He
Negative electrode Radioactive, rare, toxic, sublimates
Positive electrode Expensive (> $ 400 / kg)

Li Be o
High melting point (> 1000 C)
B C N O F Ne
Multiple oxidation states
Na Mg Al Si P S Cl Ar
K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se Br Kr
Rb Sr Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
Cs Ba La Hr Ta W 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 U 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 verification

with candidate metal couples
 “доверяй, но проверяй”
...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:

motivation (continued)
without the need for this:
Image by Mirjana Chamberlain-Vucic on Flickr.

relevant enabling technology
Heavy
Duty
Batter
y

The message
There’s 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.

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
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/.)

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

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 (ΔG) and fast kinetics
to cause the reaction to occur by steps

involving electron transfer

A simple chemical reaction
PbO2 + Pb + H2SO4(aq)
 2 H2O + PbSO4
intimate mixing of all reactants

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

Electrons in motion
Pb + SO42−(aq)  PbSO4 + 2 e−
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42−(aq) + 2 e−

 2 H2O + PbSO4

Electrons in motion
PbSO4 + 2 e−  Pb + SO42−(aq)
2 H2O + PbSO4 
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42−(aq) + 2 e−

The lead-acid battery
anode:
Pb + SO42−(aq)  PbSO4 + 2 e−
Pb 0  Pb2+ + 2e− n
(oxid )
cathode:
PbO2 + 4 H+(aq) + SO42−(aq) + 2 e−
 2 H2O + PbSO4
 Pb 4+ + 2 e−  Pb2+ n
(red )
Lead-acid battery on discharge

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)

The nickel metal-hydride battery
cathode:
NiOOH(aq) + 2 H2O + e−
 Ni(OH)2(aq) + OH−(aq)
Ni3+ + e−  Ni 2+
anode:
MH + OH−(aq)  M + H2O + e−
H  H+ + e−
The lithium ion battery
anode (-)
Liin carbon  Li+ + e -
cathode (+)
Li + + e - + LixCoO2  Li1+xCoO2
Li + + e - + Co 4+  Li+ + Co 3+
electrolyte: 1 M LiPF6 in
1:1 ethylene carbonate – propylene carbonate
Battery Performance Metrics
[1] J.-M. Tarascon and M. Armand, Nature 414, 359 - 367 (2001)
Ragone plot
Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature. Source: Tarascon, J. M., and M. Armand. "Issues and Challenges Facing Rechargeable Lithium Batteries." Nature 414 (2001). © 2001.

Warhol, “Marilyn Diptych” (1962) Tate Gallery
Please see Andy Warhol, "Marilyn Diptych," 1962.

Sadoway, “GM EV1 Diptych” (2005) Private Collection
1 Wh/kg storage capacity

 1 mile driving range

USABC Long-term Performance Goals
operating temp. -40 to 85ºC

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

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 23 51.9961 24 54.93805 25 55.847 26 58.93320 27 58.6934 28
Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni
Titanium Vanadium Chromium Manganese Iron Cobalt Nickel
⇒ theoretical capacity limited << 300 mAh/g
The Future compounds where metal cycles

over multiple redox steps

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.

Your wildest dream

Li+ + 3e- + LiXCrO3  Li1+XCrO3
Li + + 3e- + Cr 6+  Li+ + Cr3+
≈ 1000 mAh/g !
≈ 700 Wh/kg ! 700 mi

Your wildest dream

Li+ + 3e- + LiXMnO4  Li1+XMnO4
Li + + 3e- + Mn 7+  Li+ + Mn4+
≈ 1000 mAh/g !
≈ 700 Wh/kg ! 700 mi

supervalent battery: beyond lithium
 energy density ∝ (ion charge)2

 can Li become a strategic resource?

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.


 with MITEI support we have begun
searching for redox couples based upon
ions of valence ≥ 3, e.g., Al 3+


 with MITEI support we have begun
searching for redox couples based upon
ions of valence ≥ 3, e.g., Al 3+
 not just intercalation reactions but also

metatheticals

The hydrogen fuel cell
anode:
H2  2 H+ + 2 e−
cathode:
½ 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

anode:
H2  2 H+ + 2 e−
cathode:
½ 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

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
potential showstoppers
Cost: noble-metal electrodes
Cost: no infrastructure
for H2 delivery
Effectiveness: will this truly
reduce CO2 emissions?
…in summary
 One size does not fit all:

different applications call for different power sources.
 Batteries have been around for a long time:

user community justifiably frustrated at present state
of battery development.
 Big changes are under way:
ingress of materials scientists invigorating the field;
computational materials science accelerating the rate
of discovery if we make the investment.
…in summary
 Development of human resources:

electrochemical science & engineering need
sustained support to attract and retain the
best and brightest

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.
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.
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%
39% Transportation
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 Artist’s 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: MIT’s
Campus Energy Initiative
Energy Council
Campus Energy
Education Task Task Force -
Research
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
Certified Silver Gold Platinum
Cost $/sqft
250
200
150
100
50
0
Retrofit of Office Buildings in Norway –
Post 1997 Lisa Engblom
n [kWh/m2]
Reference Case
Add One Moderate Controls, Fan,
300 HVAC &
Controls
Facade Heat Exchange
Element
Consumption
Add Other
250 Moderate Controls, Heat
Annual Energy Consumptio
Facade
Elements Pump, Fan, Heat
200 Exchanger
150 Extreme Controls, Hot

Water, HP, Fan, HX
100 Extreme Controls, Hot
50 Water, HP, Fan, HX,
Lights, Office Equipment
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Extreme Controls, Hot
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
40
30
Energy costs /m2
20
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Offices

Electric Power Costs
Technology Cents/kWe-hr
Nuclear 4-7
Gas/Combined Cycle 4-6
Coal 4
Renewable
Wind 3-8
Biomass (25MW) 4-9
Small Hydro 5-10
Solar Thermal Electric 12-18
Solar PV 30-80
Efficiency of Consumption
Advanced Buildings 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 aren’t they more widespread?
Why aren’t 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
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ
ĐŽŵƉŽŶĞŶƚ
ĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞ
ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ
ĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞ hƚŝůŝƚǇ
ƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ
^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ
ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƋƵŝƉ͘
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ
^ŚĂƌĞĚ ^ŚĂƌĞĚ
ŽŶƚƌŽů Shared
KƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ ,s
ŽŶƚƌŽů ĞƐŝŐŶ
ƉƌŽĚƵĐƚ ĂƚĂďĂƐĞ KƉĞƌĂƚŽƌ
ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌ ĂƚĂďĂƐĞ
ĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞ
,ĞĂůƚŚ &ĂĐŝůŝƚǇ
^ĐŝĞŶƚŝƐƚ DĂŶĂŐĞƌ
ƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚΘ ƵƐƚŽŵĞƌ KǁŶĞƌ

ŵĞĚŝĐĂů
ĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞ
KǁŶĞƌΘƵƐĞƌ
ĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞ
Integrated design and operation of building and its systems

State-of-the-Art
Building Control
Customer Architect
Engineer 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
1
INTRODUCTION OF THE BASIC
ELEMENTS OF PROBABILISTIC RISK
(PRA) ANALYSES
• Fault Trees
• Risk
• Data
• Uncertainties
• Nuclear Power Plant PRA Structure
• Typical Results
2
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 NRC’s safety philosophy
that employs successive compensatory measures to prevent
accidents
accidents or mitigate
mitigate damage
damage if a malfunction,
malfunction, accident,
accident, or
naturally caused event occurs at a nuclear facility.”
[Commission’s 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.
3
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 Fromr an 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
⎡ Consequence1, i ⎤
r N r N ⎢ ⎥
R total = ∑ 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 ⎥⎦
Ci Vector of consequences associated with the ith event sequence
=
pi Probability of the ith event sequence
=
C Mean, or expected, consequence vector
=
Ca =
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 ⎥
⎢Offsite property loss due to event i ⎥
Onsite property loss due to event i
⎢⎣Costs to other NPPs due to event i ⎥⎦
THE HAZARD
(some fission-product isotopes)
Isotope Half-Life Volatility Health Hazard

131I 8d Gaseous External whole-body
radiation; internal
irradiation of thyroid;
high
toxicity
toxicity
89Sr 54 y Moderately Bones and lungs
volatile
106Ru 1y Highly volatile Kidneys
137Cs 33 y Highly volatile Internal hazard
to whole body
7
DECAY HEAT
10-1
Decay power to reactor power ratio, P/P0
10-2
P
P0
10-3
10-4
10-1 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.
8
THE FARMER LINE
10-3
High risk
10-4
Far
Fa m er.
rm
10-5 er. slo
pe
slo of
Frequency
pe -1
of
10-6 -1.
5
Low risk
10-7
10-8
10-9
103 104 105 106 107 108
Iodine-131 Release Magnitude (Curies)
9
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 Group’s critique.”
• “The Commission withdraws any explicit or implicit past

endorsement of the Executive Summary.”
• “…the Commission does not regard as reliable the Reactor

Safety Study’s 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 Bleed Recirc. Core

Heat Removal & Feed
OK
OK
PDSi
PDSj
18
ILLUSTRATION EVENT TREE:
Station Blackout Sequences
Seal END
LOSP DGs LOCA EFW EP Rec. Cont. STATE
0.07 per yr 0.993 success
0.007 0 success
success
core melt
melt
core melt w/ release
1 0.95 0.99 success
0.01 core melt 4.70E-06
0.05 0.94 success
0.06 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 LERF QHOs
10-4/ry 10-5/ry
Level I Level II Level III
PLANT CONTAINMENT SITE/CONSEQUENCE

MODEL MODEL MODEL
Results Results Results

Accident Containment Public health
sequences failure/release effects
leading to sequences
plant damage PLANT MODE SCOPE
states At-power Operation Internal Events
Shutdown / Transition External Events
Evolutions
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
1
10th Percentile
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 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
A A
B C B C
Meaning:
Meaning: Meaning:
Meaning:
Event A occurs when either Event A occurs when both events
event B or C occurs B and C occur
Venn Diagrams
24
CONSIDER SYSTEM MINIMAL CUT
SETS A & B
SUCCESS
FAILURE
A B
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
INCOMPLETELY
“AND” Gate DEVELOPED
EVENT, B 2
Transfer in
from Sheet 2
A1 A2
Basic Basic
Event Event
A1 A2
26
AN EXAMPLE OF A PUMPING
SYSTEM
T1 Control Valve
Fuel V1
P1 Pump Train 1
Source
Emergency
Diesel
T2 Control Valve Engine
Fuel V2
P2 P2
Source
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
⎥
⎣V1, Valve ⎥⎦
⎢
⎢⎣
V2, Valve
⎥⎦
Train 1 Train 2
C Control System
Dependent Failure of
E Electric Power Source
Pumping Train 1 and 2
CO Cooling System
Failure of Any Minimal Cut Set Will Result in System Failure
31
VENN DIAGRAM FOR FUEL
SYSTEM SUPPLY FAILURE
E
C 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
E + C + CO)
CO) {{11 + [(
[(T T2 + P2 + V2)]}1
T1 + P1 + V1) + ((T
+ (T1 + P1 + V1) + (T2 + P2 + V2)
T1 ⋅ T2 + T1 ⋅ P2 + T1 ⋅ V2
+ P1 ⋅ T2 + P1 ⋅ P2 + P1 ⋅ V2
+ V1 ⋅ T2 + V1 ⋅ P2 + V1 ⋅ V2
T1 ⋅ T2 + T1 ⋅ P2 + T1 ⋅ V2 N
T = (E + C + CO) + + P1 ⋅ T2 + P1 ⋅ P2 + P1 ⋅ V2 = U MCSi ( ) (9)
+ V1 ⋅ T2 + V1 ⋅ P2 + V1 ⋅ V2 i=1
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 <T> T f (T) dT : Mean

2 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
STRUCTURAL*
ENVIRONMENTAL
EXTERNAL*
Description of Failure Cause Failure of an interfacing A common material or design A change in the operational An event originating outside
system, action or component flaw which simultaneously environment which affects the system which affects all
affects all components all members of a component members of a component
population population simultaneously population simultaneously
Hardware Examples • Loss of electrical power • Faulty materials • Dirty water in RCS with • Weather: hurricanes,
• Aging regard to pump seal tornado, ice, heat, low
• Loss of steam production in cooling water flow
steam-driven feedwater • Fatigue • High pressure
system • High temperature • Earthquake (breaks pipe,
• Improperly cured materials disables cooling system,
• A manufacturer provides • Manufacturing flaw • Vibration breaks containment)
defective replacement parts
that are installed in all • Flooding→loss of
components of a given electricity
class • Birds in engine of airplane
Human Examples • Following a mistaken • Incorrect training • Common cause psf's • Explosion
leader • Poor management • New disease • Toxic substance
• An erroneous maintenance • Poor motivation • Hunger • Weather
procedure is repeated for
all components of a given • Low pay • Fear • Earthquake
class • Noise • Concern for families
• Radiation in control room
Easy to Anticipate?:
Component failure High Very Low Medium Medium
Human error Medium Very Low Medium Medium
Easy to Mitigate?:
Component failure High, if system designed for Very Low, hard to design for Low Low
mitigation mitigation
Human error High, if feedback provided to Very Low, the factors making Low Low
identify the error promptly CCF likely also discourage
being prepared for correction
* Usually there are no precursors
39
PRA MODEL OVERVIEW AND
SUBSIDIARY OBJECTIVES
CDF LERF QHOs
10-4/ry 10-5/ry
Level I Level II Level III
PLANT CONTAINMENT SITE/CONSEQUENCE

MODEL MODEL MODEL
Results Results Results

Accident Containment Public health
sequences failure/release effects
leading to sequences
plant damage PLANT MODE SCOPE
states At-power Operation Internal Events
Shutdown / Transition External Events
Evolutions
Uncertainties
40
RISK MODEL OVERVIEW
RISK MODEL
PLANT MODEL CONTAINMENT SITE MODEL

MODEL
SECTION 3 SECTION 4 (Not

(Not Included)
Included)
LEVEL I LEVEL II LEVEL III
RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS
Core Melt Containment Failure/ Public Health

Sequences Release Sequences Effects
Section 3.4.1.1 Section 3.4.1.2 (Not Included)
41
INTEGRATED LEVEL 3 PRA
FRAMEWORK
FRONT-END ANALYSIS BACK-END ANALYSIS
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
INTERNAL EVENTS
CORE DAMAGE
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
• EVENT TREES
• FAULT TREES
• FAILURE DATA
• FREQUENCIES ACCIDENT CONSE
PROGRESSION SOURCE
TERM QUENCE RISK
• PLANT EVENT TREE • ACCIDENT • SOURCE ANALYSIS • FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
DAMAGE PROGRES TERM OF HEALTH &
STATE SION BIN GROUPS ECONOMIC
FREQUEN FREQUEN CONSEQUENCES
CIES CIES • SOURCE
TERM
• FRONT-END • CONTAINMENT ISSUES
EXTERNAL EVENT UNCERTAIN UNCERTAINTY
CORE DAMAGE TY ISSUES ISSUES
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
• RESOLUTION OF CORE VULNERABLE • ACCIDENT • SOURCE

SEQUENCES PROGRESSION TERM
BIN DEFINITION GROUP
• PLANT DAMAGE STATE DEFINITION DEFINITION
42
QUANTIFIED ATWS SEQUENCE
EVENT TREE
ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM
SAFETY SAFETY MANUAL MANUAL ALTERNATE AUXILLARY OPERATOR
LOSS OF EMERGENCY FEEDWATER
MAIN FEED RPS SCRAM VALVES VALVES
BORON
ROD BORON
(SECONDARY ESTABLISHES DECAY HEAT CONSE PROB
OPEN CLOSE INSERTION ADDITION REMOVAL QUENCE
ADDITION COOLING) FEED/BLEED
2 FAILURE 7
OK
ASSUMED
6 9x10 -1 10
OK
9
-4 11 1.4x10-4 4x10 -13
8 3x10 -4
CD
12 1.4x10
CD 3x10 -11
5 15
OK
14 9x10 -1 18
17 OK
1 1.78 19 1.4x10-4 3x10 -14
16 3x10-4 CD
20 1.4x10-4
CD 3x10 -14
13 1x10 -1 23
OK
4 22 9x10 -1 26
OK
25
27 1.4x10-4 CD 3x10 -11
-1
24 -4
21 1x10 28 1.4x10
CD 3x10 -13
30
29 1x10 -1 31 OK
3 4.6x10-4 3x10-4
CD 2x10 -11
32 2x10-4 SMALL LOCA
DUE TO SAFETY (2x10-7 )
VALVES NOT CLOSING
33 6x10-3 LARGE LOCA

DUE TO SAFETY (5x10-9 )
VALVES NOT OPENING 43
PLANT MODEL OVERVIEW
(WITH IPE REPORT SECTION
REFERENCES)
EVENT SEQUENCE MODEL
INITIATING SUPPOR T SYSTEM/ CORE

EVENTS SYSTEM OPERA TOR DAMANGE
AVAILABILITY RESPONSE SEQUENCES
SECTION 3.1.1 SECTION 3.1.4 SECTION 3.1.2 SECTION 3.4.1.1
HAZARD SYSTEMS OPERA TOR

ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ACTIONS
APPENDIX D SECTION 3.2, SECTION 3.3.3

APP. E
DATA
ANALYSIS
44
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY
Accidents Grouped by Initiating Event
TRANSIENTS
83%
LOSP
39%
Loss of
Su pport
Support
Systems General
25% Transient
19%
LOCA
8% ATWS
9%
45
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY
Accidents Grouped by Internal and External Initiating Event
INTERNAL EVENTS
55%
Other
3%
Flood
5%
Fire Seismic
24% 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%
Early, Small Containment
Failure/Bypass
20.2%
Intact Containment
* Equivalent to "unusually poor" containment
performance, as defined in GL 88-20
**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% Other
11.1%
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
� US President: 1,900x10–5 (!)
• Annual Public Risks
� Total: 870x10-5
� Heart Disease: 271x10-5
� All cancers: 200x10-5
� Motor vehicles: 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)
UNACCEPTABLE REGION Risk cannot be justified
save in extraordinary
circumstances
d societal concerns
Control measures must be

and
Increasing individual risks an
TOLERABLE REGION introduced for risk in this

region to drive residual risk
towards the broadly
acceptable region
Level of residual risk

BROADLY ACCEPTABLE REGION 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)
Maintain
Comply with Defense-in- Maintain
Regulations Depth Safety
Philosophy Margins
Integrated
Decision Making
Risk Decrease,
Neutral, or Small Monitor
Increase Performance
55
ACCEPTANCE GUIDELINES FOR
CORE DAMAGE FREQUENCY
ΔCDF
� Region I
- No changes
Region I � Region II
- Small Changes
10-5 - Track Cumulative Impacts
� Region III
- Very Small Changes
- More flexibility with respect to
Region II Baseline
- Track Cumulative Impacts
10-6
Region III
10-5 10-4 CDF

56
RISK-INFORMED
FRAMEWORK
Traditional “Deterministic”
Risk- Risk-Based
Approaches Informed Approach
Approach
• Unquantified Probabilities
Approach
• 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
I Fussell−Veselyi =
(
R(q i ) R mcsi1 + mcsi 2 + L + mcs i m
=
)
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)
200
Number of components
150
100
50
0
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%
120%
[% CDF (Per Year)]
100%
Risk Increase
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
W
V
SF
IC
AC
S
PC
SR
5K
RP
D
ED
N
ES
RC
/E
0V
4V
TI
11
CI
60
12
VE
LP
R/
RH
System
62
USES OF RISK IMPORTANCE
MEASURES
• Fussell-Vesely
� Measure a Component’s or System’s 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 Fussell−Veselyi = 1 −
RRWi
63
SYSTEM COMPONENT COST
AND RELIABILITY DATA
Component Failure
Component 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 Electric Power
System, C System, E Valve, V-1
Importance
Measures
Fussell-Vesely 0.54 0.27 5x10 -5
Risk Reduction
Worth 2.18 1.37 1.00005
Risk Achievement 1819 1819 1.44

Worth
65
TIMELINE FOR NUCLEAR
WASTE DISPOSAL
1957 1982 1987 1992 2002 2008 2017
National Academy Congress limited DOE scheduled to

of Sciences (NAS) President recommended begin receipt of
characterization
supported deep and Congress approved spent nuclear fuel
to Yucca Mountain
geologic disposal Yucca Mountain and high-level
radioactive waste
Congress passes Energy Policy

DOE scheduled
Nuclear Waste Act sets Environ-
to submit License
Policy Act mental Protection
Application
Agency (EPA)
standard process
66
YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA
Washoe County
Humboldt County Elko County
Pershing
County
*Eureka
County
*Churchill
County
*Lander
Storey *White
County Pine
Carson City County
Douglas
*Nye County
Lyon
*Mineral
*Lincoln
County
County Nellis Air
Force Base
*Esmeralda
County *Inyo NV Test
*Clark
County Site
County
California
Yucca Las
Vegas
Mountain
* 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
1,000
Surface Feet
North Portal
Repository South Portal

Level
Water
Table 1,000 Protective
Outer Barrier
Feet
Mechanical Support
Inner Barrier
Various Permanent
Permanent Waste Waste Packages
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 •Seismic
•Early defects 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
• CAFÉ
• 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:
Don’t 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
• RGGI: Cap emissions at

current levels in 2009
Reduce emissions 10% by
2019.
• WCI: 15% below 2005

levels by 2020
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative & TCI MGGRA Observer
RGGI Observer & TCI Western Climate Initiative
Midwest GHG Reduction Accord Western Climate Initiative Observer
December 2, 2010
Page 7
State Efforts
Example Policy Measures
• Renewable Portfolio Standards
• Cap-and-Trade (CA)
• Power Plant Efficiency
Standards
• Building Efficiency Standards
• •CAFÉ
CAF É standards
standards
• Low Carbon Fuel Standards
• Adaptation Policy
• Sea Level Rise
• Wild Fire Plan Complete
• Drought 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 Mayor’s Climate

Protection Agreement: 1044 as of Example Policy Measures
12/1/2010
• 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.

• Community Engagement and
This content is excluded from our Creative Commons license. Education
For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.
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
December 2, 2010
Page 22
In 2009, 66% of imports from OPEC and Persian Gulf.
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 Gov’t:
– 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 Gov’t 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

there is absolutely no
evidence of global
warming.
Comic by Tom Toles removed due to copyright restrictions.
– 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
– 79% of Democrats believe

climate change is occurring,
relatively unchanged from
previous years
Cartoon about President Obama and climate
change removed due to copyright restrictions.
– 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 cause—US withdrawal
– But Japan, Canada, Russia, Australia while ratifying are not
fully committed—If 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 other’s 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 commitments—the issue is to
implement them.
– No reason to expect an ever bigger or broader commitment—a few more
countries committing.
– “Success” is just making progress in implementing, avoiding backsliding,
working out details, reaffirming—even 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 who’s 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 it’s 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
emissions—i.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
0.0
R
-1.0
Z
R
T
A
N
Z
M
EX
ES
N
W
AS
2020 Consumption Loss (%)
AN
EE
ID
EU
CA
CH
AF
US
JP
FS
IN
LA
RO
M
M
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
-8.0
-9.0
-10.0
-18%
70-30 shares
2020 Consumption Loss
Full Compensation
0.0
R
T
SA
HN
NZ
-1.0
M
X
ES
W
N
SI
EE
ID
EU
CA
AF
2020 Consumption Loss (%)
E
JP
FS
IN
LA
A
RO
A
M
U
C
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
If burden is allocated
-6.0
to equalize % loss
-7.0
-8.0
-9.0
Equal % cost in 2050
-10.0
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 Cancun—REDD-
Reducing 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
Temperature and Atmospheric CO2
levels.
Change in air temperature (oC)
8 1000
6
750
CO2 (ppmv)
4
500
2
0 250
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year 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
2.2
Food Price Index
1.8
Crop Price Index

1.8
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 0.6
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year
Year
4.5 4.5
Livestock Price Index
Forestry Price Index

3.5 3.5
2.5 2.5
1.5 1.5
0.5 0.5
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year Year
Energy+Land 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 more—companies 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
• It’s not just the cost of the policy it’s the broader implications on
distribution among countries and among different types of
households within countries.
• Do you trust that all parties hold to the deal—Russian hot air—
US withdrawal from Kyoto.
• Energy price and food impacts—even if countries are
compensated will households within the country be compensated.
• It’s not just abatement cost but benefits or costs imposed through
macroeconomic relationships—reduced demand for fuels
undermines a value of oil resources in Middle East, Canada,
Russia, etc.
• Very different perceptions of equity and responsibility
– Developed countries—past is past, lets fix the problem from here on
– Developing countries—you 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
1
HYDRO POWER –
A CASE STUDY
• Some facts and figures
• Large-scale versus small scale
• High head versus low–head
• Energy conversion technology
• Environmental and social impacts
• Economic issues
2
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
3
BOSTON BACK BAY
Photo by Peter Stevens on Flickr.
4
BC BEAVER DAM
5
HYDRO-QUÉBEC
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
6
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
9
DORDOGNE DAM
10
ITAIPU DAM
11
Photo by Herr stahlhoefer on Wikimedia Commons.

ITAIPU DAM
12
ITAIPU DAM
13
ASWAN DAM
14
Photos by Image Science & Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson
Space Center and NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space Flight Center.
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 Turbines - Turned by

Cross section of conventional the force of the water
water to the turbines
hydropower facility that uses on their blades
an impoundment dam
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
Dam
Reservoir
Intake structure Surge tank
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 world’s 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 Canada Québec

10% 9% 0.9%
11% 4% 1.7%
2% 1.4%
0.9%
31% 22%
59%
42% 1.1%
6%
6% 92%
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 QUÉBEC
AND THE REST OF NORTH AMERICA
Courtesy of Hydro-Québec. Used with permission.
19
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
Courtesy of Hydro-Québec. 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 Impoundment dam, 550 ft 6809 9.6 million acre ft.
Roosevelt, Washington (170m) high 11.9 km3
Niagara Falls Niagara River. New York Diversion, run of river 2400 nil
Hoover Dam Colorado River, Lake Impoundment dam, 726 ft 2080 28.5 million acre ft.
Mead, Nevada (223m) high 35.2 km3
Norris Dam TVA Clinch River, Norris Lake, Impoundment dam, 265 ft 131.4
Tennessee (81m) high
Glen Canyon Colorado River, Lake Impoundment dam, 710 ft 1296 24.3 million acre ft.
Powell, Arizona (261m) high 30 km3
James Bay Project La Grande River Watershed Impoundment and run-of- >100 Quabbins!!
La Grande 1, 2A, 3, 4 and Laforge River, Quebcc, river, multiple dams 8671
Robert-Bourassa Canada +5616
Laforge 1, 2 +1197
Brisay + 469
Eastmain 1, 1A + 768
Itaipu Parana River, Itaipu Lake, Impoundment dam, 643 ft 14,000 23.5 x 1012 acre ft.
Paraguay/Brazil (196 m) high 29 million km3
Three Gorges Yangze River, Three Impoundment dam, 607 ft 18,200 31.8 million acre ft.
Gorges Lake China (185 m) high 39.3 km3
Guri Caroni River, Venezuela Impoundment dam, 531 ft 10,235 109.4 million acre ft.
(162 m) high 135 km3
Krasnoyarsk Yenisey River, Krasnoyarsk Impoundment dam, 407 ft 6,000 59.4 million acre ft.
Lake, Russia (124 m) high 73.3 km3
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 • Europe
661,991 GWh/yr 547,732 GWh/yr
• Central and South America • Eurasia
665,316 GWh/yr 222,254 GWh/yr
• Africa • Middle East
99,449 GWh/yr 25,064 GWh/yr
• Asia and Oceania
878,332 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)
Annual hydroelectric Installed Capacity % of total

Country
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 67.17
Japan 69.2 27.229 0.37 7.21
Sweden 65.5 16.209 0.46 44.34

25
FUTURE HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECTS OVER 5,000 MW
Name Capacity (MW) Country Construction Completion
Djibouti
Red Sea Dam 50,000 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 today’s energy
markets
Hydro as % of Ratio of theoretical Ratio of economic

Country
total electricity potential to actual potential to actual
Norway 100 5.77 1.8
Brazil 91.7 5.4 3.0
Switzerland 80 _ 1.1
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 1.3
World total 19 18.34 >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
Maximum
Theoretical Technically Economically
Continent Capacity in 2005 Potential Possible Possible
GWe TWh/yr TWh/yr TWh/yr TWh/yr
Africa 21.6 83.7 3,884 1,852 > 200
North America 164.1 675.6 8,054 3,012 > 1,500
South America 123.7 596.5 7,121 3,036 > 2,000
Asia 222.7 718.2 16,285 5,523 > 2,500
Europe 225.2 705.5 4,945 2,714 > 1,000
Middle East 7.2 16.9 418 168 > 100
Oceania 13.5 40.4 495 189 > 100
Total World 778.0 2,836.8 41,202 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 = ( ρ gZ + 1/ 2 ρ∆(v ) ) × Q × ε
For impoundment hydro systems

with only static hydraulic head (PE) recovered
and no recovery of flowing head (KE)
Power = 9.81×103 ZQ ε in watts = 9.81×10−3 ZQ ε in MWe
29
TURBINE TYPES
• Impulse Turbine
Pelton
Turgo Wheel
Cross-Flow Images of turbines removed due to copyright restrictions.
• Reaction Turbine Please see "Types of Hydropower Turbines."

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.
Propeller Also see Turgo, Cross-Flow, Straflo, and Kinetic turbines.
Bulb
Straflo
Tube
Kaplan
Francis
Kinetic
30
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/hydro_turbine_types.html
HYDROPOWER IS STRATEGICALLY
IMPORTANT WORLDWIDE (2008)
• North America • Europe
661,991 GWh/yr 547,732 GWh/yr
• Central and South America • Eurasia
665,316 GWh/yr 222,254 GWh/yr
• Africa • Middle East
99,449 GWh/yr 25,064 GWh/yr
• Asia and Oceania
878,332 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
32
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
HYDRAULIC TURBINES: DOMAINS OF HEAD AND
SCALE IN THE ENGINEERING PRACTICE OF
PELTON, FRANCIS AND KAPLAN TURBINES
2,000
S Fiorano (1967)
Lang-Sima (1975)
1,000 St-Sima (1975)
Pelton
Pradella (1964)
Tonstad (1968)
New Colgate (1965)
Churchill Falls
(1972)
Nacazaki (1957)
Minimum net Head
Francis
Itaipu (1978)
meters
100 Grand Coulee IV (1973)

St Martin (1954)
Vilovi (1963)
Kanayama (1966)
Ilma Soltiera (1968)
Ligga III (1981)
Kesikkopru (1961) Jerdapiron Gate (1969)
Little Goose (1974)
Kaplan
10 Wallssee (1965)
Isola Serafini (1957)
5
10 100 1,000
Turbine Power
megawatts
33
MAJOR ATTRIBUTES OF
HYDROPOWER
Positive Negative
Emissions-free, with virtually no CO2, NOx, Frequently involves impoundment of large

SOx, hydrocarbons, or particulates amounts of water with loss of habitat due to
land inundation
Renewable resource with high conversion Variable output - dependent on rainfall and
efficiency to electricity (80%) 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 Social impacts of displacing indigenous people
storage applications
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
Switzerland’s 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
MIT Energy Initiative
Photo by NASA Visible Earth, Goddard Space, Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio.
Rwinkwavu, Rwanda
Unique Africa
Un-Electrified Population, Millions
21 809
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
South
Africa Egypt Nigeria Kenya
Population (million) 49.1 80.5 152 40
Pop. Growth Rate (%) 0.05% 2.00% 2.00% 2.60%
Urban Pop. (%) 61% 43% 48% 22%
Urban Pop. Growth Rate 1.40% 1.80% 3.80% 4.00%
GDP (Exchange Rate $Billion) $287.2 $188.0 $173.0 $32.7
GDP per capita ($) $5,849 $2,335 $1,138 $818
Electricity per capita (kWh) 4,894 1,471 126.38 122
Urban Growth per year (millions) 0.42 0.62 2.8 0.35

Rural Growth per year (millions) 0.44 0.99 0.27 0.69
% Change to Urban Annually 1.76% 0.45% 1.65% 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

20,000
GWh
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
Oil Gas Hydro
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: IEA.

Energy in OPC’s
Number of people
relying on fuelwood (%)
Number of people
Total Population, (%) and charcoal for
without electricity
2006 (million) cooking (million)
access (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
Congo 3.7 2.9 78 2.9 80
Cote d'Ivoire
^
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
Mozambique 21 18.6 89 16.9 80
Nigeria 144.7 76.6 53 93.8 65
Sudan 37.7 26.9 71 735.2 93
Total 273.1 176.9 65 204 75
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 load…5M 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) • Economies of scale
• Greater reliability
• Larger loads
• Options for resource poor
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.
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
(BUT Levelized Cost = $0.20/kWh
$0.20/kWh !!)
!!)
Whatever…what 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
5,000
GWh
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
Oil Geothermal/solar/wind
Hydro Comb. renew. & waste

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)

•175MWe installed (200MW nationally) Photo of the geothermal power plant at
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
200,000
GWh
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008
Coal/peat Nuclear Hydro

Medupi – Clean Coal!
$4.5B
880 ha
6x800MW
April 2010.
Photography by Anthony Allen, www.aerialphoto.co.za. Used with permission.

South Africa’s REFIT
Concentrated
Landfill Gas Solar Plant (CSP),
Parameter Units Wind Small Hydro
Methane Parabolic Trough with
Storage (6 hrs per day)
Capital cost: engineering

procurement & construction
(EPC) $/kW 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) - - - 8%
Total investment cost $/kW 2255 3020 2631 5545
Fixed O&M 2009$/kW/Yr 24 39 116 66

Variable O&M 2009$/kWh 0 0 0 0
Economic life Years 20 20 20 20
WACC 12% 12% 12% 12%
Plant lead time Years 2 3 2 2
Fuel type Renewable Renewable Renewable Renewable
Fuel cost $/10^6BTU 0 - 1.5 0
Fuel cost $/kWh - 0.00106 -
Heat rate BTU/kWh - - 13500 -
Assumed load factor 27% 50% 80% 40%
Levelised cost of electricity
$/kWh 0.1247 0.0940 0.0896 0.2092
production
Exchange rate R/$ ZAR/$ 10 10 10 10
Levelised cost of electricity

production R/kWh 1.247 0.940 0.896 2.092
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
1.818J/2.65J/2.650J/10.291J/10.391J/11.371J/
22.081J/22.811J/ESD166J
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Fall 2010

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.
2
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/assessment-
report/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/10-391j-
sustainable-energy-spring-2005/index.htm
4
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:
 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.
 Exams:
 There will be two take-home exams and one final exam.
 UG Grading:
 Homework 40%
 Exam 1 15%
 Exam 2 15%
 Final Exam 30% 5
COURSE REQUIREMENTS,
con’t
• Graduate Student Requirements
 Homework:
 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).
 Term Project:
 Graduate students will be required to turn in one written term paper
(20-30 pages) with an interim progress report.
 Graduate Grading:
 Homework 40%
 Term Project 60%
 Student-led
Discussion 10% (max)
Extra Credit
6
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
8
STRUCTURE, CONT’
• Lectures:
 Part II: Specific Energy Technologies
6. Wind Power
10. Nuclear Energy I: Current Technologies
11. Nuclear Energy II: Future Technologies and the Fuel Cycle
12. Fossil Energy I: Conversion, Power Cycles, Advanced Tech
13. Fossil Energy II: Types and Characteristics
14. Cape Wind Energy and Offshore Wind Projects
15. Current Energy Policy
16. Fossil Energy III: Fuels, Emissions
17. Nuclear Energy III: Nuclear Proliferation and Waste Disposal
18. Electricity Generation Alternatives
20. Fusion as a Future Energy Source?
21. Carbon Management Options
22. Geothermal Energy
23. Solar Photovoltaic Energy
24. Solar Thermal Energy
25. Biomass Energy
26. Biomass Conversion to Liquid Fuels
27. Hydropower 9
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 Sub-
Saharan 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

Fall 2010
Overview of Energy Use and Related Issues
or, Energy - What’s the problem
Dr. John C. Wright
MIT - PSFC
9 SEP 2010
S.E. Lecture 2 1
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 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 3
M ORE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
Drive smaller cars

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

Increase the efficiency of everything
Cars: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fully electric
S.E. Lecture 2 4
S TRATEGY A SSESSMENT
It’s a hodge-podge
Are all problems being addressed?
Are alternatives compared by means of a cost-benefit analysis?
Are we providing sufficient funds for R&D innovations?
Does the media do a good job informing the public?
S.E. Lecture 2 5
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 6
Introduction Course and this lecture
O UTLINE
Energy uses
Energy consumption
Fuel reserves
The greenhouse effect
Energy technologies
S.E. Lecture 2 7
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 8
Energy usage
US E NERGY U SAGE
Energy by Application in 2007

Electricity Electricity
Transportation
Heating 40%
32%
28%
Heating
Transportation
(EIA-DoE 2007)
S.E. Lecture 2 9
Energy usage Resource usage breakdowns
US O IL U SAGE
Transportation vs. heating
Heating
31%
69%
Transportation
S.E. Lecture 2 10
US E LECTRICITY B REAKDOWN
How do we obtain electricity?
Electricity Breakdown 2007

Coal
49%
4%
22% 6% Other
19% Hydro
Gas
Nuclear
S.E. Lecture 2 11
OTHER
Other = 4.1%
Oil
1.61%
Wood 0.93% 0.01% Solar

0.36%
Geothermal
0.41% 0.78%
Waste Wind
S.E. Lecture 2 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
W ORLD G AS R ESERVES = 6189 MILLION MILLION CUBIC FEET
Gas in Russia
Data normalized to peak value.
S.E. Lecture 2 14
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
1 Oil
Natural Gas
Nuclear Energy
Mtoe
Hydroelectricity
0.5 Coal
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Growth in energy usage related to increase population and
standard of living
Note recent reduction in 2008-2009.

S.E. Lecture 2 16
H OW LONG WILL THE SUPPLIES LAST ?
Oil and natural gas - 50 years

Coal - 300 years
Oil shale and tar sands - 350 years
Nuclear fission
Today’s 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
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 - it’s an energy carrier
Basic problems are tough
Takes considerable energy to produce hydrogen.
Difficult 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 fission
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 Steam Electric

exchanger turbine generator Electricity
Water Exhaust steam
Makeup water Condenser
Exhaust steam is waste heat into the environment

Heat engine efficiency is given by furnace inlet temperature and
exhaust temperature: η = (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 C + O2 → CO2 + heat
Gas CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2 O + heat

Gasoline C8 H18 + 12.5O2 → 8CO2 + 9H2 O + heat
S.E. Lecture 2 22
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
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 reflected, most
absorbed.
Re-radiation rate depends on
temperature (∝ T 4 )
Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art.

At equilibrium the earth
reaches a high enough
temperature so that
Power in = Power out

S.E. Lecture 2 24
P OLLUTION
Shangai Bombay
Courtesy of Michael Golay. Used with permission.
S.E. Lecture 2 25
Technologies Nuclear
N UCLEAR F UEL
More difficult than fossil fuel

Natural uranium
99.3%238 U + 0.7%235 U
Only 235 U produces energy by fission
Complicated enrichment needed for 4% 235 U
Place fuel rods in a reactor vessel
S.E. Lecture 2 26
N UCLEAR F UEL
Containment
structure
Water
vapor
Pressurizer
Reactor vessel
Control
rods Turbine
Steam generatorVapor
(heat change) Alternator
Cooling
Water coolant Condenser tower
(330 ◦ C) Liquid Pump
Reactor
core Cooling
water
Water coolantPump
(280 ◦ C) Pump
Pressurized water Water and steam Water

(primary loop) (secondary loop) (cooling loop)
S.E. Lecture 2 27
BASIC N UCLEAR R EACTION
After several intermediate steps the key nuclear reaction is
n + 235 U → 2 fission products + 2.5n + 6β + 10γ + 10ν + 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 flowing 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)(flow rate)(efficiency)

=ρgh[J/m3 ] × Q[m3 /s] × η[%]
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 André 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 sun’s 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 lot’s 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 fluid is forced to the
surface
Use it to make steam
Use the steam to make
electricity
Image from EERE.

Pump the water back into the
earth
S.E. Lecture 2 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
IMAGES
From
NASA’s
!"#$%&’()’*+,##-’. /0! TERRA
satellite
Image by NASA. From Visible Earth.
PRESENTATION TO
22.811J: SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
MIT, CAMBRIDGE MA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2010
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:
1.6 W m x 5.1 x 10 4 m2 = 8.16 x 1014 W = 816 TW (about 52 times cur rent
-2 1
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
pre-industrial))
1860 or pre-industrial)
No Policy at 1400 100% (100%) 85% 25%
Stabilize at 900 (L4) 100% (100%) 25% 0.25%
Stabilize at 790 (L3) 97% (100%) 7% < 0.25%
Stabilize at 660 (L2) 80% (97%) 0.25% < 0.25%
Stabilize at 550 (L1) 25% (80%) < 0.25% < 0.25%
WITH THESE PROBABILITIES FOR WARMING EXCEEDING 2oC ABOVE PRE-INDUSTRIAL,

HOW FEASIBLE IS A POLICY TARGET TO LIMIT WARMING TO LESS THAN 2oC?
POLES WARM MUCH
FASTER THAN TROPICS;
IF ICE SHEETS MELT, HOW
MUCH SEA LEVEL
RISE COULD OCCUR?
Map showing retreat of Greenland coastline due to 7 meters sea level
rise has been removed due to copyright restrictions. See page 21 in
West Antarctic Ice Sheet 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
Continental
Lithosphere Shell Edge
The last time the polar regions
5 Meters Sea Level Rise were significantly warmer (~4 oC)
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. than present for an extended
period (about 125,000 years ago),
STABILITY OF WEST ANTARCTIC
reductions in polar ice volume led
ICE SHEET to 4 to 6 meters of sea level rise.
REFs: Bindschadler et al; ACIA, Impacts of a Warming
Arctic, Climate Impact Assessment Report, 2004
THIS WOULD INDUCE EMISSION OVER
Map showing retreat of Greenland coastline due to 7 meters sea level
rise has been removed due to copyright restrictions. See page 21 in
TIME OF THE 1670 BILLION TONS OF
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). "Impacts of a Warming Arctic CARBON STORED IN ARCTIC TUNDRA
Climate Impact Assessment." Cambridge University Press, 2004. & 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.
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF
ARCTIC TUNDRA & REF: ACIA, Impacts of a Warming
Arctic, Climate Impact Assessment
PERMAFROST THAWS? Report, 2004
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 For the period 1979-2009, the
September (the month of rate of decrease of ice extent
ice extent minimum) is 2.5% per decade (March)
relative to the mean and 8.9% per decade
values for the period (September).
1979–2000. 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 OVERTURN DRIVEN

with 100 years of CO2 INCREASE then
BY SINKING WATER
STABILIZATION of CO2 for 900 years
indicate IRREVERSIBLE COLLAPSE of
IN THE POLAR SEAS
OCEANIC OVERTURN if CO2 exceeds 620 (Norwegian, Greenland,
ppm and CLIMATE SENSITIVITY exceeds Labrador,Weddell, Ross)
its current best estimate of 3.5oC
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 Crops
Non-Energy Livestock
Agriculture Forestry
Energy Intensive Food processing
Other Industry Crude slate &
Biofuel crops
Services gasoline,
Industrial Transport Biomass Elec.
diesel,
Household Transport
Other Household Cons. petcoke
heavy oil,
Energy biodiesel, Technologies Included
Crude & Refined oil, ethanol, Fossil (oil, gas & coal)
Biofuel
NGLs & IGCC with capture
Shale oil NGCC with capture
Coal explicit
NGCC without capture
Natural gas upgrading Nuclear
Synthetic gas (from coal)
Electricity Hydro
Wind and solar
Biomass
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
EPPA MODEL Sectors and Technologies 
Sectors 
  Non‐Energy 
  Agriculture 
  Energy Intensive 
  Other Industry  Transport Alternatives
  Services  Conventional Gasoline/Diesel
  Industrial Transport  (continue to improve)
  Household Transport 
      Other Household Cons.  Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
  Energy  Pure Electric Vehicle
  Crude & Refined oil,  Bio-fueled Vehicle
  Biofuel  Compressed Natural Gas Vehicle
  Shale oil 
  Coal 
  Natural gas 
  SyntheCc gas (from coal) 
  Electricity 
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
1% 0.25% <0.25%
900
Stabilize at
3% 0.5% <0.25%
790
Stabilize at
25% 2% 0.5%
660
Stabilize at
70% 30% 10%
550
*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) Bio-
IF UNRESTRICTED,
fuels
NUCLEAR COMPETES WITH
& COULD REPLACE COAL Nuclear
Coal WITH CCS.
Coal
SOLAR & WIND NEED
LARGE COST REDUCTIONS with C
Gas TO COMPETE.
capture
and
Oil storage
*Carbon price ~$1750/tonC in 2100
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) Ref: Melillo,
CLIMATE EFFECTS OF LAND CONVERSION 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 CAN AVOID THESE EFFECTS BY

GENERATION CAPACITY, ADDING REFLECTORS TO THE
POSSIBLY INCLUDING ON- ARRAY TO YIELD ORIGINAL
SITE ENERGY STORAGE REFLECTIVITY
Photo by Sint Smeding on Flickr.

WINDMILLS WARM INSTALLED LAND
WHAT ARE EFFECTS OF
REGIONS & WARM/COOL ELSEWHERE
WINDMILL ARRAYS AT
LARGE SCALES ON
SURFACE TEMPERATURE
OVER SEMI-ARID LAND
(L, 5TW, 58 million km2)
(Ref: Wang & Prinn,
Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
2010)
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 Harmonies Conflicts
• Oil Off-shore Drilling

Foreign balance
Policy reduces Dirty substitutes
demand and BUTSands,
Tar MOST
Political enhances biomass
dependence fuels CONFLICTS
Shale, Coal
ALLEVIATED
liquids
WITH
• Natural gas Policy reduces Shift to coal in
CARBON
demand and
Political enhances supply electric
CAPTURE power
dependence diversity
AND
Policy encourages
STORAGE
• Nuclear Shift to coal
needed regulatory
Proliferation reform
Safety & Waste
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 W hat would we A NEW WHEEL

with NO buy with STABILIZATION with lower odds
POLICY at 660 ppm-equivalent of CO2? of EXTREMES
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 1

Mission of this Session
• Introduce the importance and challenges of

Energy Conversion
–– Diffuse
Diffuse energy sources
– Thermodynamic limits
– Rate processes
2
Sustainable Energy – Fall 2010 – Conversion
Energy Conversion
• Energy Conversion is the process of
changing energy from one form to another
Energy Energy Useful

Source Conversion Energy
3
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
4
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
fuels Solar C Photovoltaics
lim
ate
Ocean Wind, hydro,
thermal
Energy Forms
Chemical
Mechanical
Heat Electricity
work
Nuclear
Fission &
Geothermal
fusion To end uses:
Sources
transportation
gas, oil coal

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)
8
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
9
Order of Magnitude of Energy Resources
10
Source: World Energy Council
Energy Supply – USA Sources
11
Source: ESno
erugrycIe
nf:oE
rm
naetriognyAIdnmfo
inris
mtraattiioonn, AAndnm
uail n
EinsetrrgaytiRoen
vi,eA
wn2n
00u7al EnergSyusR
taie
navblie
ewEne2rg0y0–7Fall 2010 – Conversion
Important Metrics
Energy Sources Conversion Method

• Specific Energy (MJ/kg) • Conversion Efficiency
• Energy Density (MJ/L) • Form of energy product
• Phase • CO2 generation

• Impurities • Water usage
• Cost • 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 Complete Vapor: CO2,

25°°C Combustion Cool N2, SO2 25°°C
Air Liquid: H2O
Higher Heating Value (HHV) or Gross Calorific Value
Dry Fuel Complete Vapor: H2O,

25°°C Combustion Cool CO2, N2, SO2 25°°C
Air
Lower Heating Value (LHV) or Net Calorific Value 14

Key Metric: Conversion Efficiency
Energy Input Useful Energy Output

Conversion
Process
Energy Loss
• When producing work (mechanical or electricity):

η = Work Output / Energy Input
• When producing energy carriers (diesel, hydrogen):

η = Energy Content of Product / Energy Input
15
Sources fuels Solar C
lim
Photovoltaics
ate
Ocean Wind, hydro,
thermal
Energy Forms
Chemical
Mechanical
Heat Electricity
work
Nuclear
Fission &
Geothermal
fusion To end uses:
Sources
transportation
gas, oil coal
Sustainable Energy – Fall 2010 – Conversion 16

Conversion Efficiencies
Conversion Type Efficiencies
Natural Gas Furnace Chemical → Heat 90-96%
Internal combustion engine Chemical → Mechanical 15-25%
Power Plant Boilers Chemical → Heat 90-98%
Steam Turbines Heat → Mechanical 40-45%
Electricity Generator Mechanical → Electricity 98-99%
Gas Turbines Chemical → Mechanical 35-40%
Hydro Grav. Potential → Mechanical 60-90%
Geothermal Thermal→ Mech→ Electricity 6-13%
Wind Kinetic → Mech→ Electricity 30-60%
Photovoltaic Cells Radiation → Electricity 10-15%
Ocean Thermal Thermal→ Mech→ Electricity 1-3%
Source: Sustainable Energy 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 = ηoverall = ∏ηi
i=1
ηoverall = η gas extractionη gas proces sin gη gas transmissionη power plantηelectricity transmissionηdistributionηmotor
Key Efficiencies include:

• Fuel production
• Fuel Transport
• Transmission
• Energy Storage
for example compressed air energy storage (CAES):
Work output Wturbine

ηoverall ≡ = = ηturbineηcompressor
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 can’t win or even

break even in the real world 19
Rate Processes in Energy Conversion
• Heat Transfer
• Mass Transfer
• Chemica l Reac
ec tions
ons
20
Fluxes of heat, material, electrons must be driven
by gradients in free energy
dT
• Fourier’s law of heat conduction q = −k
dx
• Fick’s law of diffusion dC
j = −D
dx
• Fluid mechanics
• 2 ρ D 2 dP
dP
Flow in pipe = −
µ f Re dx
I dV
= −σ
• Ohm’s law of current flow 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
Humanity’s 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 ΔHrxn 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 + ½ O2 = H2O + electricity + heat
N.B. These overall reactions occur through multiple steps
26
Gasification to Syngas
Fossil fuel Electricity,
or biomass Gasifier Syngas:
CH4, H2,
800°C CO
Steam or oxygen Gasoline/diesel,
H2
methanol
CH1.5O0.67 + 0.33 H2O → CO + 1.08 H22
wood steam syngas

�Hr = +101 kJ/mol
700-900°C, 1 atm
Heat required to drive this

endothermic reaction
usually provided by partial
oxidation with O2
Image by Gerfriedc on Wikimedia Commons.
27
Source: National Renewable Energy Lab; F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland.
Water-gas-shift and methanation reactions
CO
H2 WGS H2
reactor CO2
H2O
Water gas shift

∆Hr = -41 kJ/mol
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 400-500°C, 1 atm
Iron oxide catalyst
CO CH4
Methanation
H2 CO2
reactor
H2O
Methanation
∆Hr = -127 kJ/mol
CO + 1.08 H2 → 0.52 CH4 + 0.48 CO2 + 0.04 H2O 400°C, 10-20 atm
Ni catalyst
28
Source: F. Vogel, Paul Scherrer Institut, Switzerland;
& Cat Comm 4 215-221 (2003). Sustainable Energy – Fall 2010 – Conversion
Fischer-Tropsch Reaction:
Syngas to Liquid Fuels
CO
H2
• “Ideal” FT reaction:
(2n+1) H2 + n CO → CnH2n+2 + n H2O 200-350°C

F-T
reactor Exothermic
• Many simultaneous reactions

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

• Applications: Alcohols
– Coal-to-liquids
– Gas-to-liquids
– Biomass-to-liquids
29
Rates of chemical reactions
A+B ↔C +D
• Chemical reaction rates
are functions of the Forward rate
concentration of rf = k f [A]n A [B]nB
reacting species.
Backward rate
rb = kb [C]nC [D]nD
• Forward and Backward
Overall rate
Reactions running
simultaneously: need a r = k f [A]n A [B]nB − kb [C]nC [D]nD
free-energy difference
to drive in one Rate definition
direction. d[A] d[B] d[C] d[D]
r ≡ − =− = =
dt dt dt dt
30
Reaction rates are strong
functions of temperature
⎧ − E
A ⎫
r ∝ k = Aexp
⎨ ⎬
• Chemical reactions
⎩
RT
⎭
generally accelerate
dramatically with ln k
temperature
• Typical values of EA are

~200 kJ/mol.
1/T
Arrhenius plot 31
Catalysts
• Catalysts accelerate
chemical reactions.
• In mixtures with many
reactions possible,
catalysts can accelerate
desired reactions to
increase selectivity.
• Catalysts don’t change the
equilibrium.
• Catalysts don’t change
ΔHrxn.
32
Coal-to-Liquids Conversion
Coal
Electricity
Prep Tail
Product gas
Synthesis gas FT Power
production process recovery generation
N2
O2 CO
Hydrogen
H2 Wax recovery
Air sep. WGS H2
Air plant
Liquid
Gas fuels Wax
treatment hydrocracking
Liquid
CO2 H2S fuels Transportation
fuels
Mid-distillate
Diesel
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: PNNL.
33

Reaction Kinetics - Key to Performance
Coal
Electricity
Prep Tail
Product gas
N2
O2 CO
Hydrogen
H2 Wax recovery
Air sep. WGS H2
Air
plant
Liquid
Gas fuels Wax
Liquid
fuels
Mid-distillate
Diesel
34

Mass Transfer: Key to Reactions & Separations
Coal
Electricity
Prep Tail
Product gas
N2
O2 CO
Hydrogen
H2 Wax recovery
Air sep. WGS H2
Air
plant
Liquid
Gas fuels Wax
Liquid
fuels
Mid-distillate
Diesel
35

Coal
Heat Transfer Size & Cost
Electricity
Prep Tail
Product gas
N2
O2 CO
Hydrogen
H2 Wax recovery
Air sep. WGS H2
Air plant
Liquid
Gas fuels Wax
Liquid
fuels
Mid-distillate
Diesel
36

Coal
Electricity
Thermodynamics set the limits
Prep Tail
Product gas
N2
O2 CO
Hydrogen
H2 Wax recovery
Air sep. WGS H2
Air
plant
Liquid
Gas fuels Wax
Liquid
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 don’t 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
Environment
Development
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 short-
term 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 doesn’t 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
9 8.2
7.8
8
TOE/person-year
7 World Average = 1.7 TOE/person-year

5.6 [1998 World Average = 1.4 TOE/per-yr]
6 5.1 5
5 4.4 4.1 4.2
3.9 3.7
4
3 2.6
2 1.6
1.1 1.1
1 0.7 0.5
0.14 0.16
0
USA Canada Norway Netherlands Saudi Arabia Russia

Japan Germany U.K. Switzerland Kazakhstan Mexico
Brazil China Egypt India Africa Bangladesh
From: Pocket World in Figures 2007, The Economist, London
World Commercial Primary Energy Use –
Now and Projected (Edmonds, BAU)
BP data, 1999, Edmonds, 2095,

8.5 bTOE 30+ bTOE?
USA W. Eur. M.E.+Afr. USA W. Eur. M.E.+Afr.

Japan Other Amer. E. Eur + FSU Japan Other Amer. E. Eur + FSU
China Austral + Asia China Austral + Asia
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.
Country % of World % of World % of World Energy

Population GDP 2006 Consumption 2006
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%

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
The Greenhouse Gamble
[sample forecasts of future temperature change]
Average Global Temp. change from 1990
10oF
Adapted from MIT Joint Program

estimates of range of credible scenarios
5oF
0oF
Noise band
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Year
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 Photo-
Fuels voltaics
Solar Wind, Hydro,

Thermal Waves, Tidal
Energy Forms
Electrochemical
Chemical
Mechanical
Heat Electricity
Work
Nuclear
Energy Sources
Fossil Fuels
Nuclear Geothermal To End Uses:
Fuels Residential
Industrial
Transportation
Image of sun by MIT OpenCourseWare.

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
• China’s 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?)
Applies to:
Lower limit
food?
Upper money?
limit cars? TVs? etc.?
work?
sleep?
Quality of life
friends?
and more!
Sufficient
(balance)
Excess
(obsession?)
Consumption or Level of Activity

Some Barriers
• Most people don’t 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
people’s (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.hm-
treasury.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
O UTLINE
The Three Dimensions of Sustainabilty

1 Another definition of
sustainability - not running out
of things. e.g. land Finance/
Energy footprint Economy
Environmental footprint Trade-Offs
&
Ecological footprint Equity/ Synergies
Ecology/
Social
Carbon footprint Development
Environment
2 Drivers of Change Derived from the World Bank (1996)

Derived from World Bank (1996)
3 Opportunities and Barriers;

timing issues
2 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
0.8
Asia
Europe
0.6
HDI
North America
0.4
South America
Oceania
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
kWh/percapita · 104
W E ARE NOT IN STEADY STATE
Population and standards of living are increasing.
2005 data. Pop 6,486,882,848 (2005)

1
Africa
0.8
Asia
Europe
0.6
HDI
North America
0.4
South America
Oceania
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
kWh/percapita · 104
Along the way, we need to make informed choices.
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 inefficiency 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.
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 efficiency of fuel and how much CO2 emitted
in CO2 /BTU
K AYA DATA
Average Annual Percent Change 1980-1999

Population Standard Energy Carbon Carbon
Region of Living Intensity Intensity 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%
W HY DOES ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT MATTER
Footprints are about measuring how much of a finite 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.
D ISCUSSION
How much does our location globally have to do with our

footprint?
Solutions? Equity?
Consequences?
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 θ� = 12 250 W/m2 => 2000 m sq
Cloud cover can cost 25%-50%
, but we’ll be generous and as
sume we use deserts.
Efficiency of solar cells. Take 20%. 50 W/m2 => 4472 m squared

Packing efficiency. 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
E COLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
See http://www.earthday.net/footprint
What is your footprint?
My own footprint is not great:
Food 3.0 acres
Mobility 7.0 acres
Shelter 3.2 acres
Goods 3.0 acres
Services 8.7 acres
Total 24.9 acres (about US average)
Worldwide there are 4.5 biologically productive acres per person.

Is there enough to go around?
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). It’s 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.
2×240000liter
× 10kWh/liter �
416passengers
12000kWh per passenger
Pro rate this for my trip:
×300/8800 � 400kWh

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

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 × 44kWh/gallon �
880kWh
D ISCUSSION
It is said the Gobi desert could supply the world’s 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?
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 efficiency standards 14->45
lumens/W)
Related closely to adoption and development of technologies.
Refrigerators as a historical example resisted by industry.
Changes in people’s preferences. Social pressure. What have
you observed compared to say 20 yrs ago? greening of
industries? Why?
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 efficient infrastructure.
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/
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

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sustainable Energy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.818J/2.65J/3.564J/10.391J/11.371J/22.

Prof. Michael W. Golay

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

Class 1 – Sandstone Deposits

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

Yield from Yield from Yield from

G = G(Z), where (Eq. 1)

Yi is a random variable (i = 1,n)

Note that Z and G are also random variables.

RESOURCE ESTIMATION METHOD,

POSTULATED PHASES OF MINERAL RESOURCE

• Early: Low Demand, Low Production Costs, Low Innovation

Growing With Demand, Start of Innovation

• Mature: Decreasing Demand And Discovery Rate, Production

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from the American Gas Association. 16

(ca. 10% of total resources)

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

where r = relative rate of change

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

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

Courtesy of U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

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

text readings in Chapter 16

Sustainable Energy - Fall 2010 - Storage

16.1 Overview of Energy Supply Infrastructure Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648

• Why do we need storage?

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. 5

• Variations in Energy Demand

• Variations in Energy Supply

• Interruptions in Energy Supply

• Demand for Portable Energy

• Efficiency of Energy Systems

• Excess capacity plus dispatch system

Source: EIA 2008 9

Example: Nevada Solar One hourly net electricity output

• Cost to USA from poor power quality $119 to $188

• Variations in Energy Demand

• Variations in Energy Supply

• Interruptions in Energy Supply

• Demand for Portable Energy

• Efficiency of Energy Systems

• Not much energy storage in US electricity supply system

• USA system uses excess capacity and dispatch to meet

• Lack of storage impedes large-scale deployment of

• Potential energy (pumped hydro, compressed air, springs)

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

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Adapted from Donald Sadoway.

Image of POWERTHRU Flywheel removed due to copyright restrictions.

Pentadyne GTX Flywheel 19

Current Collecting Plate

Current Collecting Plate

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

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

• energy capture rate and efficiency

• energy capture rate and efficiency

Energy and power density are both important!!

Omitted from chart:

Pumped Potential 1 (100m head) Electric

Compressed Air Potential 15,000 in kJ/m3 Electric

Thermal Enthalpy Water (100-40oC) – 250

Fossil Fuels Reaction Oil – 42,000 Transport, Electric,

Biomass Reaction Drywood – 15,000 Transport, Electric,

Batteries Electrochemical Lead acid – 60-180