Post on 07-Mar-2018
Charles Forsberg
Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Ave; Bld. 42-207a; Cambridge, MA 02139
Tel: (617) 324-4010; Email: cforsber@mit.edu
Alternative Nuclear Energy Futures
Peak Electricity, Hydrogen, and Liquid Fuels
MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems
2011 World Nuclear University Institute
Christ Church, Oxford, England
Tuesday July 10, 2012
File: Nuclear Renewable Futures; Oxford WWU 2011 July
1
Alternative Nuclear
Energy Futures
Charles Forsberg
2
The Energy Challenge
3
Energy Futures May Be Determined
By Two Sustainability Goals
No Imported Crude Oil No Climate Change
Tropic of Cancer
Arabian Sea
Gulf of Oman
Persian
Red
Sea
Gulf of Aden
Mediterranean Sea
Black Sea
Caspian
Sea
Aral Sea
Lake Van
Lake Urmia
Lake Nasser
T'ana Hayk
Gulf of Suez Gulf of Aqaba
Strait of Hormuz Gulf
Suez Canal
Saudi Arabia
Iran Iraq
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
Somalia
Djibouti
Yemen
Oman
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Bahrain
Socotra (Yem en)
Turkey
Syria
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Cyprus
Lebanon
Israel
Jordan
Russia
Eritrea
Georgia
Armenia Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Ukraine
0 200
400 miles
400
200 0
600 kilometers
Middle East
Tropic of Cancer
Arabian Sea
Gulf of Oman
Persian
Red
Sea
Gulf of Aden
Mediterranean Sea
Black Sea
Caspian
Sea
Aral Sea
Lake Van
Lake Urmia
Lake Nasser
T'ana Hayk
Gulf of Suez Gulf of Aqaba
Strait of Hormuz Gulf
Suez Canal
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Iraq
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
Somalia
Djibouti
Yemen
Oman
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Qatar
Bahrain
Socotra (Yem en)
Turkey
Syria
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Cyprus
Lebanon
Israel
Jordan
Russia
Eritrea
Georgia
Armenia Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Ukraine
0 200
400 miles
400
200 0
600 kilometers
Athabasca Glacier, Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada Photo provided by the National Snow and Ice
Data Center
2050 Goal: Reduce
Greenhouse Gases by 80%
4
Oil and Gas Reserves Are
Concentrated in the Persian Gulf
Reserves of Leading Oil and Gas Companies
Rank Company Total Oil/Gas Reserves:
Oil Equivalent
(109 Barrels)
1 National Iranian Oil Company 316
2 Saudi Arabian Oil Company 305
3 Qatar General Petroleum Corp. 179
4 Iraq National Oil Company 136
Non-Government Corporations
14 ExxonMobil Corp. 15
18 BP Corp. 13
Price and Availability are Political Decisions
5
http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/worlds_largest_oil_and_gas_companies.htm
Three-Component
Energy Challenge
Electricity
Liquid Fuels
Hydrogen (The Hidden Challenge)
6
Dem
and (
10
4 M
W(e
))
Time (hours since beginning of year)
Variable Electricity Demand
New England Electrical Gird
7
Today Nuclear Is Designed for Base Load Electricity
Need for Liquid Fuels
Products: Ethanol
Biofuels
Diesel
Feedstock Conversion Process
Carbon: Fossil fuel (CHx)
Biomass (CHOH)
Atmosphere (CO2)
Energy: Fossil fuel
Biomass
Nuclear
Hydrogen Fossil Fuel
Biomass
Water
8
Inputs: Carbon, Energy, and Hydrogen
Lower-Grade Feed Stocks Require More
Heat and H2 to Produce Diesel Fuel
Vehicle Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Vs Feedstock to Make Diesel Fuel
Illinois #6 Coal Baseline
Pipeline Natural Gas
Wyoming Sweet Crude Oil
Venezuelan Syncrude
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Gre
enh
ouse Im
pa
cts
(g C
O2-e
q/m
ile in S
UV
)
Conversion/Refining
Transportation/Distribution
End Use Combustion
Extraction/Production
Business As Usual
Using Fuel
Making and
Delivering of Fuel
(Fisher-TropschLiquids)
(Fisher-TropschLiquids)
Sou
rce o
f Gre
en
hou
se
Impacts
←N
uc
lea
r E
ne
rgy
Can
Su
pp
ly
←Feedstock
9
10
Current applications (U.S. 9 Million tons/y) Convert heavy oil, tar sands, and coal into
gasoline and diesel
Remove sulfur from liquid fuels
Fertilizer (ammonia)
Convert metal ores to metals (4% of iron production)
Future Shale oil and biomass to liquid fuels
Replace coal for metals (steel) production
Peak electricity
Direct use as transport fuel?
Hydrogen
Input for Liquid Fuels, Chemicals, and Other Uses
Hydrogen—The Storable Energy Bridge
Between the Electricity and Fuels Markets
Underground commercial H2 storage is
based on natural-gas storage technology
Low cost storage
The U.S. stores a quarter of a year’s natural
gas underground before the heating season
←Chevron Phillips↑ Clemens Terminal for H2
160 x 1000 ft cylinder in salt deposit
Many geology options
11
The Variable
Electricity Challenge
Electricity Storage for a Low-Carbon World
Storage May Drive Energy Production Choices
12
Dem
and (
10
4 M
W(e
))
Time (hours since beginning of year)
Variable Electricity Demand
New England Electrical Gird
13
About 2/3 Electricity is Base-Load
Variable Electricity Demand Met By Hydro
(Limited Availability) and Gas Turbines
14
What replaces natural-gas turbines for variable
electricity if restrictions on fossil fuel use?
Future option: Store excess energy when low
electricity demand for times of high demand
Conducted analysis of storage requirements
Used hourly electricity demand data
Nuclear: Steady state power output
Wind: Hourly wind data and NREL wind turbine model
Solar: Hourly solar data and NREL solar trough model
Dem
and (
10
4 M
W(e
))
Existing Base Load
Time (hours since beginning of year)
New Base Load With Storage
If Nuclear Electricity and Perfect Storage
U.S.: Base-load Electricity Market 50% Larger
~7% of Electricity to Storage to Meet Peak Demand
15
Demand
(Actual)
Nuclear
Wind
(Projected)
Solar
(Projected)
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Ou
tpu
t (M
We
)
Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan
Dates (2005)
California Demand Vs. All-Nuclear, All-Wind,
or All-Solar Electricity Production
KWh Produced/Year By Each Method = KWh Consumed/Year
If No Fossil Fuels for Electricity,
How Match Production With Demand?
16
California Electricity Storage Requirements
As Fraction of Total Electricity Produced
Assuming Perfect No-Loss Storage Systems
Electricity
Production
Hourly Actual
demand
Yearly Constant
Demand
Each Weeka
All-Nuclear1 0.07 0.04
All-Wind2 0.45 0.25
All-Solar2 0.50 0.17
1Steady-state nuclear; 2NREL wind and solar trough model (with limited storage) using CA wind / solar data
Massive
seasonal
storage
requirements
Renewables
viability
depends upon
seasonal
storage
aAssume Smart Grid, Batteries, Hydro, etc for Daily Energy Storage
17
Energy Storage is the Cost Challenge
for a Low-Carbon World
18
Variable electricity demand today met by:
Hydro—but limited capacity in most countries
Natural gas—but not in a low-carbon world
Renewables: Capacity factors (wind / solar) ~30%
Implies ~70% natural gas and ~30% renewables
Alternative is energy storage but that can double costs
All-nuclear option has competitive advantage with
lower electricity storage requirements
Potential renewable enabler: nuclear-renewable systems
Gigawatt-Year Nuclear-
Geothermal Heat Storage
Seasonal Energy Storage
Status: Early R&D
Initial Assessment: Commercially Viable
19
Geothermal Heat Storage System
Create Artificial Geothermal Heat Source
Oil Shale
Oil Shale
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
ete
rs
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
ete
rs
Rock
Permeable
Cap Rock
Geothermal Plant Nuclear Plant
Fluid
Return
Thermal
Input to
Rock
Thermal
Output
From Rock
Fluid
Input
Nesjavellir Geothermal power plant; Iceland;
120MW(e); Wikimedia Commons (2010)
20
Pressurized
Water for
Heat Transfer
Nuclear-Geothermal Storage Is
Based On Two Technologies
Recovery of Heavy Oil
By Reservoir Heating
California and Canada
Geothermal Power Plant
Heat Extraction
Figure courtesy of Schlumberger; Nesjavellir Geothermal power plant, Iceland: 120MW(e); Wikimedia Commons (2010)
21
↑
Sto
rag
e
↑
Heat Storage Must Be Large
to Avoid Excessive Heat Losses
Intrinsic Large-Scale Nuclear Storage System
Heat Capacity
~ Volume (L3)
L ~ 400 m
Can not insulate rock
Heat loses ~ surface
area
Heat capacity ~
volume
Large storage has
smaller fractional heat
loses
No
Insulation
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
Heat
Losses
~6L2
Must
minimize
fluid loss
22
Nuclear Geothermal Observations
Low-carbon nuclear-renewable world requires massive electricity storage
Requires very cheap storage media Rock may be the only storage media that is economic for
seasonal energy storage
Underground the only environment cheap enough
Two heat transfer fluids Hot water near-term (<300°C) coupled to LWR
Carbon dioxide longer-term option with many questions
Initial assessment, much work remains
23
Hybrid Energy Systems
Coupling Electricity and Fuels Production
Enable Full-Load Utilization of
Nuclear and Renewables While Meeting
Variable Electricity Demand
Nuclear: Steady-State Heat Source
Renewables: Variable Electricity
24
Variable Heat / Electricity To
Fuels Production: Fully Use
Nuclear and Renewables
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
Hybrid Electricity and Fuels System
25
Example Hybrid System
Nuclear Renewables
Oil-Shale System
Laboratory/Pilot Plant Development
26
Global Shale Oil Reserves Far
Exceed Conventional Oil
27
Conventional Shale Oil Production
28
Oil shale contains no oil but
instead kerogen
Heat kerogen to 370°C
underground to produce oil, gas,
and carbon char
Current strategy Burn one quarter of oil and gas
product to heat shale
Large carbon dioxide release during
production
Slow underground heating
process over a year; can add heat
at a variable rate
Non-Nuclear
Operating Pilot
Plants
The Shell In Situ Conversion Process:
Heat Oil Shale Electrically to Release Liquid Fuel
Oil Shale
Heater Wells
Overburden
Ice Wall
(Isolate
In-Situ
Retort)
Refrigeration
Wells
Producer Wells
29
Can Use Nuclear Heat (Steam in
Pipes)
For In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting
Heat kerogen in oil
shale rock to 370°C
Slow heating process
Several years
Avoids burning fossil
fuels to produce heat
Low-greenhouse-gas
option for fossil fuels
30
Challenges for Using LWRs
Need to Heat Oil Shale to 370°C
31
Need 450°C heat when
account for temperature
drops
Two stage process
Steam heat to 210°C
Electric heating of steam to
raise shale oil temperatures to
370°C
Steam Heat
of Oil Shale
to 210°C
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity to
Heat Steam
for Oil Shale
to 370°C
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
LWR Renewables Shale-Oil System
32
Steam Heat
of Oil Shale
to 210°C
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity to
Heat Steam
for Oil Shale
to 370°C
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
High-Electricity-Price Operations
Low Renewables Output: Night, Winter, Etc.
33
Steam Heat
of Oil Shale
to 210°C
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity to
Heat Steam
for Oil Shale
to 370°C
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
Low-Electricity-Price Operations
34
Natural Gas Option
Implications of Hybrid System
Nuclear Renewable Oil-Shale
35
Meet variable electricity demand
Economic 100% load factor for
nuclear and renewables
Enable renewables with variable
electricity from base-load nuclear
plants
Low greenhouse gas emissions
by eliminating fossil fuels for
variable electricity production
Example Hybrid System
Nuclear Renewable Electricity
and Hydrogen System
Pilot Plant Stage of Development
36
37
Deregulated Electricity Markets
Have Some Cheap Electricity
Electricity Prices versus Hours Available
$ 0.0
Per
MWh
If Large-Scale Renewables,
More Cheap Electricity
When the Sun Shines or
Wind Blows (And low
revenue for renewables)
Alkaline electrolysis commercial for almost a century
2H2O + electricity → 2H2 + O2
Efficiency: 66% LHV; Cell lifetime: 20 years
Cheap Electricity Could Be
Turned Into Valuable Hydrogen
38
But Not Economic Because of High Capital Cost if
Operate Electrolyzer 100s of hours/year
Potential Solution: Light Water Reactor
High-Temperature Electrolysis
39
Water + Electricity + Heat →
H2 + O2
Operates in reverse:
Hydrogen → Electricity
Can convert low-priced
electricity to hydrogen if
low capital costs
Development status: Pilot
plant
High-Temperature Electrolysis
Hydrogen Production or
Electricity Production
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
Electricity and Hydrogen System
Alternative Hybrid System
40
High-Temperature
Electrolysis: Hydrogen
Production
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
If Low Electricity Prices: H2
Production
41
High-Temperature Electrolysis
Operated in Reverse:
Hydrogen to Peak Electricity
Variable
Electricity
Demand
Electricity
Non
Dispatchable
Solar and
Wind
Steam
Turbine /
Generator
Steam
Nuclear
Reactor
(Steam)
If High Electricity Prices: H2 to
Electricity
42
43
Reversible Electrolysis in Market
Electricity Prices versus Hours Available
Buy
Electricity
Sell
Electricity
Electricity → Hydrogen → Electricity
Reversibility of High-Temperature
Electrolysis May Make Hydrogen
Production Economic
44
Primary mission: use cheap electricity
to make hydrogen for liquid fuels
Secondary mission: H2 to Electricity
Peak electricity for <300 hr/y
Inefficient but avoid buying gas turbines
Capital cost savings for gas turbines
helps pay for HTE
System soaks up any cheap
electricity for fuels production
About 20% of Generating Capacity is
to Meet Peak Power Demand
Many Gas Turbines Have Very Low Capacity Factors
Producing Very Expensive Peak Electricity
Midwest Electric Grid
~100 GWe Total Capacity
Partly Pay for High-Temperature
Electrolysis by Replacing Gas Turbines
45
Future Nuclear Hydrogen Systems
46
Electrolysis
↓ Electricity
↓
E
lectr
icit
y
↓
High-
Temperature
Electrolysis
Heat
→
Liquid Fuels
Fertilizer
Metals
Peak Power (Future)
Underground
Storage Same
as Natural Gas
Nuclear → H2 / O2 → H2 / O2 → Markets
Power Plant From Water Storage
Liquid Fuels
Oil Supplies 35% of World Energy
Transportation is the Key Issue
(About equal to base-load electricity market)
47
Electric Transport Options
Electric car limitations
Limited range
Long recharge time (Gasoline-
refueling rate is ~5 MW)
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
Electric drive for short trips
Recharge battery overnight to
avoid rapid recharge requirement
Hybrid engine with gasoline or
diesel engine for longer trips
Plug-in hybrids and other
technologies may cut liquid
fuel use in half Courtesy of the Electric Power
Research Institute
48
Three Inputs into Liquid Fuels
Products: Ethanol
Biofuels
Diesel
Feedstock Conversion Process
Hydrogen Key Input for Lower Quality Feedstocks and Low CO2
Biomass, Heavy oil, Oil Sands, Coal
Carbon: Fossil fuel (CHx)
Biomass (CHOH)
Atmosphere (CO2)
Energy: Fossil fuel
Biomass
Nuclear
Hydrogen Fossil Fuel
Biomass
Water
49
Urban Residues
We Will Not Run Out of Liquid Fuels
But the Less a Feedstock Resembles Gasoline,
The More Energy it Takes in the Conversion Process
Agricultural Residues
Coal
Sugar Cane
50
Many Nuclear-Fossil Options
Conversion of fossil feed stocks into liquid
fuels requires heat and hydrogen (Slide 9)
Heat and hydrogen can be supplied by
nuclear reactors
Benefits
Reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas releases
from liquid fuels production
Full conversion of carbon into liquid fuels
Potentially economic in some circumstances
Options only partly analyzed
51
The Biofuels Challenge
1. Production limited by feedstock availability
Need for efficient use of feedstock
Assurance of supply
Total availability of feedstock (see backup materials)
2. Major cost challenge is processing efficiency
52
Biomass Fuels: A Potentially Low-
Greenhouse-Gas Liquid-Fuel Option
CxHy + (X + y
4 )O2
CO2 + ( y
2 )H2O
Liquid Fuels
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Fuel Factory
Biomass
Cars, Trucks, and Planes
Energy
Fossil Biomass Nuclear
53
U.S. Biomass Fuels Yield Depends
On the Bio-Refinery Energy Source
Convert to Diesel Fuel with Outside
Hydrogen and Heat
Convert to Ethanol
Burn Biomass
12.4
4.7
9.8
0
5
10
15
Energ
y V
alu
e (
10
6barr
els
of die
sel
fuel e
quiv
ale
nt per
da
y)
←U.S. Transport
Fuel Demand Biomass
Energy to
Operate
Bio-refinery
54
Without Impacting Food and Fiber Production
Wildcard: Algae Large Biofuel Feedstock if It Will Grow on Dry Land
Efficiently with Abundant Seawater
Wet Mess:
Require External
Energy Source to
Convert to Biofuels
Future Cellulosic Liquid-Fuel Options
Biomass As Energy Source Nuclear as Energy Source
Biomass
Cellulose (65 - 85% Biomass)
Lignin (15 - 35% Biomass)
Gasoline/ Diesel
Ethanol
Steam
Ethanol Plant Steam Plant Lignin Plant Nuclear Reactor Ethanol Plant
Hydrogen (small
quantities)
Heat
Steam
Biomass Nuclear Biomass
50% Increase Liquid Fuel/Unit Biomass
Electricity
Ethanol
56
Many Biofuels Options—Leading Midterm Option
Liquid Fuels From Air
Unlimited Liquid Fuels If Energy Source
57
Liquid Fuels Can Be Made From Air
More Energy Intensive Than Liquid Fuels from Biomass
Convert CO2 and
H2O To Syngas
Heat + Electricity
CO2 + H2O → CO + H2
Fischer-Tropsch CO + H2 → Liquid Fuels
High Temperature
Co-Electrolysis (One Option)
Extract
CO2
From Air or
Industrial
Sources
58
Reactor Reactor Heat
to Liquid Fuel
Reactor Heat
to Electricity
Light Water
Reactor
22% 33%
High-Temperature
Reactor
31% 45%
Energy Efficiency to Convert
Air and Water into Diesel
Primary Cost is Hydrogen Production
Ultimate Cost Limit for Liquid Fuels: 2-3 Times Electricity
Costs on a Thermal Basis ($10-12 /gal)
*J. Galle-Bishop, Nuclear-Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels from Air and Water, MS Thesis, MIT, Advisor: C. Forsberg, June 2011
59
Questions
Oil Shale Oil
Shale
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
ete
rs
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
ete
rs
60
Outline
The Energy Challenge Three Component Energy Demand
The Variable Electricity Challenge Nuclear Geothermal Energy Storage
Hybrid Energy Systems Nuclear Renewable Oil-Shale Systems
Nuclear Hydrogen Electricity Systems
Liquid Fuels Biofuels
Air
Appendix: Added Information
61
Biography: Charles Forsberg
Dr. Charles Forsberg is the Executive Director of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Study, Director and principle investigator of the High-
Temperature Salt-Cooled Reactor Project, and University
Lead for Idaho National Laboratory Institute for Nuclear
Energy and Science (INEST) Nuclear Hybrid Energy
Systems program. Before joining MIT, he was a Corporate
Fellow at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is a Fellow of
the American Nuclear Society, a Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and recipient
of the 2005 Robert E. Wilson Award from the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers for outstanding chemical
engineering contributions to nuclear energy, including his
work in hydrogen production and nuclear-renewable energy
futures. He received the American Nuclear Society special
award for innovative nuclear reactor design on salt-cooled
reactors. Dr. Forsberg earned his bachelor's degree in
chemical engineering from the University of Minnesota and
his doctorate in Nuclear Engineering from MIT. He has been
awarded 11 patents and has published over 200 papers.
62
http://web.mit.edu/nse/people/research/forsberg.html
ABSTRACT
Alternative Nuclear Energy Futures: Hydrogen,
Liquid Fuels, and Peak Electricity
In the next 50 years the world energy system may see the largest change since the
beginning of the industrial revolution as we switch from a fossil to a nuclear-
renewable energy system. The drivers are climate change and oil dependency.
Historically, nuclear energy has been considered as a source of base-load
electricity. These drivers indicate the need to consider nuclear energy in a broader
role including using nuclear energy for (1) variable daily, weekly, and seasonal
electricity production by coupling base-load nuclear reactors to gigawatt-year
energy storage systems, (2) liquid fuels production in nuclear biomass and nuclear
carbon-dioxide refineries, and (3) hydrogen production to support fuels and
materials production. This would be a transformational change. First, nuclear
energy may become the enabling technology for the large-scale use of
renewables—both biofuels production and electric renewables that require
backup electricity when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Second, electricity and liquid fuels production would become a tightly coupled
energy system.
63
References-I
1. C. W. Forsberg, “Sustainability by Combining Nuclear, Fossil, and Renewable Energy Sources,” Progress in Nuclear Energy, 51,
192-200 (2009)
2. C. Forsberg and M. Kazimi, “Nuclear Hydrogen Using High-Temperature Electrolysis and Light-Water Reactors for Peak
Electricity Production,” 4th Nuclear Energy Agency Information Exchange Meeting on Nuclear Production of Hydrogen, Oak
Brook, Illinois, April 10-16, 2009. http://mit.edu/canes/pdfs/nes-10.pdf
3. C. W. Forsberg, “Nuclear Energy for a Low-Carbon-Dioxide-Emission Transportation System with Liquid Fuels,” Nuclear
Technology, 164, December 2008.
4. C. W. Forsberg, “Use of High-Temperature Heat in Refineries, Underground Refining, and Bio-Refineries for Liquid-Fuels
Production,” HTR2008-58226, 4th International Topical Meeting on High-Temperature Reactor Technology, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers; September 28-October 1, 2008;Washington D.C.
5. C. W. Forsberg, “Economics of Meeting Peak Electricity Demand Using Hydrogen and Oxygen from Base-Load Nuclear or Off-
Peak Electricity,” Nuclear Technology, 166, 18-26 April 2009.
6. I. Oloyede and C. Forsberg, “Implications of Gigawatt-Year Electricity Storage Systems on Future Baseload Nuclear Electricity
Demand”, Paper 10117, Proc. International Congress on Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, San Diego, 15-17 June 2010.
7. I. Oloyede, Design and Evaluation of Seasonal Storage Hydrogen Peak Electricity Supply System, MS Thesis, MIT, June 2011 (C.
Forsberg: Thesis Advisor)
8. Y. H. Lee, C. Forsberg, M. Driscoll, and B. Sapiie, “Options for Nuclear-Geothermal Gigawatt-Year Peak Electricity Storage
Systems,” Paper 10212, Proc. International Congress on Advanced Nuclear Power Plants, San Diego, 15-17 June 2010.
9. Y. H. Lee, Conceptual Design of Nuclear-Geothermal Energy Storage System for Variable Electricity Production, MS Thesis,
MIT, June 2011 (C. Forsberg: Thesis Advisor)
10. C. W. Forsberg, R. Krentz-Wee, Y. H. Lee, and I. O. Oloyede, Nuclear Energy for Simultaneous Low-Carbon Heavy-Oil Recovery
and Gigawatt-Year Heat Storage for Peak Electricity Production, MIT-NES-TR-011, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(December 2010).
11. G. Haratyk and C. Forsberg, “Integrating Nuclear and Renewables for Hydrogen and Electricity Production”, Paper 1082, Second
International Meeting on the Safety and Technology of Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Control, and Management, Embedded
American Nuclear Society Topical, San Diego, 15-17 June 2010.
12. G. Haratyk, Nuclear-Renewables Energy System for Hydrogen and Electricity Production, MS Thesis, MIT, June 2011. (C.
Forsberg: Thesis Advisor)
13. C. Forsberg, “Alternative Nuclear Energy Futures: Peak Electricity, Liquid Fuels, and Hydrogen”, Paper 10076, Second
International Meeting on the Safety and Technology of Nuclear Hydrogen Production, Control, and Management, Embedded
American Nuclear Society Topical, San Diego, 15-17 June 2010.
14. J. Galle-Bishop, Nuclear-Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels from Air and Water, MS Thesis, MIT, June 2011. (C. Forsberg: Thesis
Advisor).
64
References-II
65
•C. W. Forsberg, “A Nuclear Wind/Solar Oil-Shale System for Variable Electricity and Liquid Fuels Production,”
Paper 12006, 2012 International Congress on the Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, Chicago, Illinois (June
24-28, 2012)
•C. W. Forsberg, Y. Lee, M. Kulhanek, and M. J. Driscoll, “Gigawatt-Year Nuclear Geothermal Energy Storage
for Light-Water and High-Temperature Reactors,” Paper 12009, 2012 International Congress on the Advances in
Nuclear Power Plants, Chicago, Illinois (June 24-28, 2012)
•G. Haratyk and C. W. Forsberg, “Nuclear Renewables Energy System for Hydrogen and Electricity Production,
Nuclear Technology, 178 (1), pp 66-82 (April 2012).
•M. Kulhanek, C. W. Forsberg, and M. J. Driscoll, Nuclear Geothermal Heat Storage: Choosing the Geothermal
Heat Transfer Fluid, MIT-NES-TR-016, Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (December 2011)
•C. W. Forsberg and G. Haratyk, “Nuclear Wind Hydrogen Systems for Variable Electricity and Hydrogen
Production,” Proceedings American Institute of Chemical Engineers Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
October 16-21, 2011.
•C. W. Forsberg, Nuclear Energy for Variable Electricity and Liquid Fuels Production: Integrating Nuclear with
Renewables, Fossil Fuels, and Biomass for a Low Carbon World, MIT-NES-TR-015 (September 2011)
•Y. Lee and C. W. Forsberg, Conceptual Design of Nuclear-Geothermal Energy Storage Systems for Variable
Electricity Production, MIT-NES-TR-014 (June 2011).
•G. Haratyk, C. W. Forsberg, and M. J. Driscoll, Nuclear-Renewables Energy System for Hydrogen and
Electricity Production: A Case Study of a Nuclear-Wind-Hydrogen System for the Midwest Electrical Grid, MIT-
NES-TR-012 (June 2011).
•J. M. Galle-Bishop, C. W. Forsberg, and M. Driscoll, Nuclear Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels from Air or
Water: Applicable Technology for Land-Based Future Production of Commercial Liquid Fuels, MIT-NES-TR-
013, Center for Advanced Nuclear Engineering Systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 2011).
Gigawatt-Year Nuclear-
Geothermal Heat Storage
Added Information
66
Heat Is a Preferred Way
for Seasonal Energy Storage
Rock heat storage media is cheap
Economic penalty is smaller for inefficiencies
Carnot limit in converting heat to electricity
Value of heat is a third that of electricity
Electricity storage media are too expensive
Chemical (lead, lithium, etc.)
Gravity (hydro pumped storage)
Kinetic (flywheel)
67
Seasonal Storage Energy Losses
Fixed Parameters Inlet Temp. 250oC, Outlet Temp. 30
oC, Porosity 0.2, D/L = 0.331,
Cycle Length = 6 months
68
Fractional Energy Loss for Three
Different Reservoir Sizes Indicate
Minimum Size ~0.1 GW-year
69
← 6-GWe Nuclear
Geothermal →
Natural Gas→ ←10 GWe Base-
Load Electricity
Generating Capacity (GWe)
Total
Electricit
y Costs
(Billion $)
Total Annual Electricity System Cost
Vs Nuclear Geothermal System Size
Economic Assessments Indicates Intermediate Load Market
Higher Capital But Lower Operating Cost Than Natural Gas
Analysis Based on New England Electrical Grid
Permeable Rock Requirements
Heat storage zone must have permeable rock to
allow heat transfer fluid to heat and cool rock
Minimum permeability ~1 Darcy
Low permeable rock outside storage zone to avoid hot
fluid loss (energy loss)
Technologies to create permeable rock zone
Cave block mining
Selective rock dissolution
Hydrofracture in sandstone
70
Create Highly Permeable Rock Zone
by Cave Block Mining
Standard mining technique Creates crushed rock zone
Used in copper and iron mining
Mining technique Tunnels at top of future storage zone
Mine out zone at bottom of future crushed rock zone
Boreholes between mined zones filled with explosives
Controlled detonation to create crushed rock zone
Void volume in crushed rock matches voids of original mined rock zone
Mined out Zone
71
Create Permeable Rock Zone by
Selective Dissolution
Many heavy oil deposits (minus oil) have high permeability and void fractions
Install nuclear geothermal heat storage system Operates as washing machine with
hot and cold cycles to extract oil
Remove oil at power plant
Oil as secondary product
Initial operation for oil recovery and heat storage
72
Create Highly Permeable Zone
in Sandstone by Hydrofracture
Chose geology with reasonably high permeability
Hydrofracture to increase permeability Standard oil field
technology
Inject water with sand to pry open fractures
Higher permeability
Oil Shale
Oil Shale
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
ete
rs
Hu
nd
red
s o
f M
ete
rs
73
Operations Strategy
Variable heat input when excess heat available
Variable geothermal electricity output
System meets three energy storage demands Hourly
Weekly (weekday and weekend variation)
Seasonal
Does not replace all storage Large system so slow response (hour)
Other technologies such as batteries and hydro pumped storage for rapid changes in demand
74
Research and Development Needs
Geology and mining Understand cycling rock temperatures
Potential to clean up heat transfer geofluid (H2O or CO2) to reduce scaling in power plant
Develop rock zones with high controlled permeability
Power systems—Improve economics Existing geothermal power plants are small, inefficient,
and expensive
Used their performance in our analysis
Potential for major efficiency and cost improvements because storage geothermal power plants 10 to 100 times larger Triple flash rather than double flash power systems
Water chemistry control from geothermal heat storage zone
75
Hydrogen
Added Information
76
Hydrogen Production Is a
Large Enterprise
~5% of U.S. National Gas is Used
For Hydrogen Production
Largest Single Natural-Gas to Hydrogen
Plant (Kuwait Refinery Add-on) Equals
3 Nuclear Plants With Electrolyzers
77
Hydrogen Production Today
Steam reforming of fossil fuels
CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
Fossil fuels are burnt to provide the
heat to drive the chemical process
Energy required to make hydrogen
depends upon the feedstock
Natural gas: Chemically reduced
hydrogen (Least energy)
Coal: Hydrogen deficient
Water: Oxidized hydrogen
78
High-Temperature Electrolysis Cell (Courtesy of INL and Ceramatec)
More efficient than electrolysis
Cold Electrolysis: Electricity
Converts liquid water to gases
Breaks chemical bonds
HTE: Electricity and Heat
Heat converts water to steam
and weakens chemical bond
Electricity breaks chemical
bond
High-Temperature Electrolysis (HTE)
Steam Electrolysis of Water: Status--Small Pilot Tests
79
2H2O + Electricity + Heat → 2H2 + O2
High-Temperature Electrolysis Cell (Courtesy of INL and Ceramatec)
Electrolytic cell at 800°C
Steam at 200 to 300°C
Heat steam to cell temperatures Hot H2 and O2 from electrolytic cell
heats incoming steam
Final temperature boost from
electrical inefficiencies
Estimated LWR efficiencies
Electricity: 36%
Cold electrolysis: 25.7%
HTE: 33 to 34%
HTE With Light-Water Reactors
80
LWR High-Temperature Electrolysis
81
Option for Variable
Electricity and Heat Output
from Light Water Reactor
Thermochemical Cycles
2H2O + Heat → 2H2 + O2
Potential for better economics
Heat is cheaper than electricity
Potential to scale up to large equipment sizes
Many proposed cycles with peak
temperatures from ~500°C to 1000°C
Long-term option—much R&D is required
82
MIT Nuclear-Wind Study
Potential economic wind in Midwest (Blue and Purple)
How to export stranded renewable energy?
83
Nuclear-Wind-H2-Natural Gas Option
Minimize Electricity → Storage → Electricity
Test case
North Dakota wind
Nuclear-Wind-Natural
Gas-Hydrogen System
Products
Local electricity
Hydrogen export
Chicago refineries
Alberta tar sands
Competitive if reduce
wind and HTE cost with
higher price natural gas
84
*G. Haratyk, Nuclear-Renewables Energy System for Hydrogen
and Electricity Production, MS Thesis, MIT,, June 2011
Test Case Based on Midwest Grid
Parts of U.S. and Canada
Average: 61.8 GWe
Peak: 96.5 GWe
Minimum: 39.5 GWe
85
86
Medium-Voltage
Electricity
High
Temperature
Electrolysis
Variable
Electricity
To Local
Grid
Underground
Hydrogen
Storage
High-Voltage
Electricity
Steam/
Heat
Hydrogen
Base-Load
Nuclear
Power
Plant
Electricity
and / or
Steam
Output
Steady
State
Export of
Hydrogen to
Industrial
Users
Structure of Nuclear-Renewable
Electric-Hydrogen System
Two
Products! Wind or Solar
(Partial Gas Turbine Backup)
High-Capital-
Cost Systems
Operate at High-
Capacity Factors
Hydrogen
Pipeline
86
Fuel Cell
Uses cheap heat from nuclear plants to partly
replace expensive electricity for H2 production
2 H2O + Electricity + Heat → 2 H2 + O2
When high electricity demand, operates in reverse
as fuel cell (FC) to produce electricity
1-GWe Nuclear-HTE:
2H2 + O2 → Electricity + 2H2O
As 40% efficient FC: 11.4 GWe
Replace natural gas turbines that operate only a few
hundred hours per year with high capital cost charges
High-Temperature Electrolysis (HTE)
May Be the Critical Technology
87
Reversible High-Temperature Electrolysis
– Fuel Cell May Reduce Capital Costs
Midwest ISO Generation Vs Generator Hours/year
Excess
Electricity→H2
H2→Electricity
88
Replace Gas
Turbines
with HTE / FC
Nuclear base-load to minimize expensive energy
storage (Electricity→ Storage → Electricity)
Low-cost industrial hydrogen Operations: Electricity for H2 generated when low electricity
demand and prices
Reduce HTE electrolyzer capital cost by also using as FC
replacing low-capacity-factor natural gas turbines
Maximizing hydrogen value Primarily for industrial use
Minimize inefficient use for peak electricity production
Electricity → Hydrogen → Electricity
Lower-price natural gas in combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGTs)
for electricity between wind and FC electricity generation
System Economics
Assuming Reductions in Wind Capital Costs, Reductions in
HTE-FC Costs, and Increase Natural Gas Prices
89
Nuclear Wind Natural-Gas System—No H2
Nuclear Base-load: 40 GWe; Wind: 50 GWe
Full Wind Backup With Natural Gas: 57 GWe
Alternative Midwest Electricity
Grid Using 2009 Last Week of
June Wind and Electricity
Demand Data
90
Alternative System: Nuclear Wind
Excess Electricity Converted to H2
Times of High Wind, Low-Electricity-Demand
Same Last Week of June 2009 Data
High-Temperature Electrolysis
Cells Operated as Fuel Cells
at Other Times of the Week
91
92
1 GW(e) Nuclear-HTE Implies 11.4 GW(e) Fuel Cell Capacity (Yellow)
that Replaces 11.4 GW(e) Low-Capacity Gas Turbines
Alternative System: H2 Nuclear
Wind Natural-Gas Electricity System
Capacity: Nuclear Base-load: 40 GWe; Wind: 50 GWe;
Full Wind Backup with Natural Gas: 45.6 GWe and
Hybrid Nuclear: 1 GWe (11.4 GWe FC with H2)
Electricity Generation Breakdown
H2 Fuel Cells (HTE Units in Reverse) Provide Large Peak
Capacity But Small Fraction of the Total Electricity (0.5%)
Reversible HTE/FC Can Help
Pay the Capital Cost of
Electrolysis
93
Natural Gas / Hydrogen Notes
Hydrogen is made from natural gas (NG) and thus
is more expensive
Expect convergence of natural gas and oil prices
Can convert NG to diesel (see page 10)
First world-class NG-to-diesel coming on line
Shell Qatar Pearl Project
Single plant consumes equivalent of 3% U.S. NG
Second-generation lower-cost micro-channel pilot
plants coming on line
Oil production much larger than NG so tend to drive
NG prices toward oil prices over a decade
94
Biofuels Production
Economics
Biofuels Availability Country Dependent
95
Thanks to Bruce Dale at Michigan State University for Selected Slides on Biofuels
Impact of Processing Improvements:
Oil’s Past & Future
Early Years Today's Mature
Processes
Future
Oil Processing
Relative Cost
From J. Stoppert, 2005
96
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80
Cost of oil, $/barrel
Co
st
of
bio
ma
ss
, $
/to
n
Energy content
Adapted from Lynd & Wyman
Projected Cellulosic
Biomass Prices
Biomass Feedstock Cost Competitive
Current Oil Prices ~ $100/barrel →
97
Future of Cellulosic Biofuels Production
Depends Upon Reducing Processing Costs
Processing costs are
central
Dominated by: pretreatment,
enzymes & fermentation
Processing costs are
decreasing rapidly
Requires economics of scale
Logistics (delivered
biomass cost) is emerging
as key cost issue to enable
economics of scale for the
biorefinery Today Future
?
Relative Cost
Adapted from J. Stoppert, 2005
98
Densifying Biomass Would Enable
Efficient Shipment to Large Biorefineries
Convert regional, distinct
biomass sources into
dense, stable, shippable
intermediate commodities
with uniform characteristics
99
Densification Processes
Are Being Developed
Bulk density:
6 pounds/cubic foot
Limited transport
Bulk density:
~45 pounds/cubic foot
Distance transport
AFEX Biomass Pellets: No Binder (Work in Progress)
Estimated cost to pellet: $5-10/ton (per Federal Machine, Fargo, ND)
100
Cellulosic Densification Improves
Economics / Supports Nuclear Biofuels
Enables large bio-
refineries
Economics of scale to
match oil refineries
Massive energy
demand that matches
large nuclear-power-
plant scale
Massive demand for
low-temperature heat Today Future
Relative Cost
Adapted from J. Stoppert, 2005
101
?
In Some Cases Nuclear Biofuels
Competitive Today (Corn Ethanol)
Ethanol from corn requires low-
temperature heat for distillation
Nuclear plants sell steam in multiple
countries today
Low-temperature steam has low
value for electricity production
High-temperature steam for
electricity
Divert steam to biofuels
Ethanol plants have used steam
from nuclear plants
102
Liquid Fuels From Air
Unlimited Liquid Fuels If Energy Source
103
Liquid Fuels Can Be Made From Air
More Energy Intensive Than Liquid Fuels from Biomass
Convert CO2 and
H2O To Syngas
Heat + Electricity
CO2 + H2O → CO + H2
Fischer-Tropsch CO + H2 → Liquid Fuels
High Temperature
Co-Electrolysis (One Option)
Extract
CO2
From Air or
Industrial
Sources
104
Extract CO2 from Air
Water to Hydrogen: 2H2O → 2H2 + O2
Produce Syngas: H2 + CO → CO + H2O
Convert Syngas to Gasoline and Diesel (FT)
(2n+1)H2 + nCO → CnH2n+2 + nH2O (Paraffins)
2nH2 + nCO →CnH2n + nH2O (Olefins)
Liquid Fuels From Air
The Ultimate Source of Liquid Fuels
105
Energy Input: Primarily to Make Hydrogen
Reactor Reactor Heat
to Liquid Fuel
Reactor Heat
to Electricity
Light Water
Reactor
22% 33%
High-Temperature
Reactor
31% 45%
Energy Efficiency to Convert
Air and Water into Diesel
Primary Cost is Hydrogen Production
Ultimate Cost Limit for Liquid Fuels: 2-3 Times Electricity
Costs on a Thermal Basis ($10-12 /gal)
*J. Galle-Bishop, Nuclear-Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels from Air and Water, MS Thesis, MIT, Advisor: C. Forsberg, June 2011
106
Conclusions-I
Energy sources have different characteristics Nuclear: Large-scale steady-state heat source
Wind / Solar: Mid-scale variable regional sources
Biomass: Limited carbon resource
Two grand challenges Variable electricity production
Liquid fuels (or replacement) production
Nuclear-renewable world options Nuclear energy minimizes energy storage costs
Potential for large systems using storable hydrogen (dual peak power and industrial market uses)
Liquid fuels from nuclear biomass systems
107
Conclusions-II: Need to Develop and
Commercialize Interface
Technologies
Technology Example Need
Nuclear Geothermal Heat
Storage
System Development
Nuclear-Renewable
Hydrogen Electricity
High-Temperature
Electrolysis / Fuel Cell
Nuclear Biofuels Conversion of Lignin into
Liquid Fuels
The gas turbine was a great idea but It needed development
of swept-wing aircraft (a bridge technology) to obtain the full
benefits. Similar need for bridge technologies to fully utilize
nuclear energy today
Biomass Availability
Boosting Food and Biofuels Production Simultaneously
Analysis Must Be Done By Region Because Biomass
Challenges Vary Across the World
Analysis Herein for North American Corn Belt
The Largest Agricultural System on Earth
Added Information: Thanks to Bruce Dale: Michigan State University
109
Not Asking the Right Questions
We cannot force bioenergy into the current agricultural
landscape and expect it to work well
Agriculture has changed before; it can change again
We must examine the actual uses of land
Most agricultural land is used for animal feed, not direct
human consumption
Cropland is currently not used efficiently; we actually have
more than enough land (U.S.)
Solution: think about the whole system: use land efficient
animal feeds to boost total biomass output per acre
Three land-efficient animal feed approaches
Leaf protein concentrates (to replace soybean meal)
Digestible cellulosic feeds for ruminants
Double cropping
110
U.S. Livestock Consumption of
Calories & Protein
HERD SIZE
TOTAL
PROTEIN TOTAL ENERGY
ANIMAL CLASS (THOUSANDS) (MILLION KG/YR) (TRILLION CAL/YR)
Dairy 15,350 10,400 184.8
Beef 72,645 25,100 525.3
Hogs 60,234 6,900 136.2
Sheep 10,006 461 10.6
Egg production 446,900 2,470 4.3
Broilers produced 8,542,000 9,540 150.3
Turkeys produced 269,500 1,760 28.6
Total consumed by
U.S. livestock 56,630 1,040,000
Human requirements 5,114 205
111
Regional Biomass Processing Depots:
Evaluating Scenarios 112
Actual vs. Possible Land Use (U.S.)
On the same land, total biomass production increases by 2.5
Displaces 50% of US gasoline & 5% of US electricity
Reduces US GHGs by 10%
Food & feed production remain the same
If nuclear-biomass, much higher biofuels production
113
114
Some Biofuels Opportunities
Most biofuels R&D investment to date has emphasized conversion/fuel production—major progress has been made in past 5 years
Feedstock supply, densification & logistics are now emerging as the key issues
Densified cellulosic biomass greatly increases potential scale of cellulosic biorefineries—potential for integration with nuclear plants
Integrate cellulosic biofuels with nuclear power Pyrolysis oil must be chemically reduced before
processing as a petroleum substitute
Fermentation biofuels would benefit from heat integration and/or chemical reduction
115
Biomass is a Better Carbon Source
than Energy Source
We have experience in growing carbon-source
versus high-energy-source biomass
Two largest crops in the U.S.
Corn: Cellulose and starch: Low energy per ton
Soybeans: Limited cellulose and some oil: High energy per ton
Corn yields 4 times soybeans (excluding corn stover)
To maximize biofuels production
Use biomass as a carbon source
Supply outside energy source for biorefinery
116
Feedstock Nuclear Energy Input
Corn starch to ethanol (today) Low-temperature heat
Biomass to ethanol,
gasoline, and diesel
Low-temperature heat and
some hydrogen
Biomass to gasoline & diesel Hydrogen
Liquid Fuel Yields per Ton of Biomass
Increase with External Energy Inputs
Nuclear-Geothermal Heat Storage and Hydrogen Production Are
Supporting Technologies for Nuclear-Biomass Fuels Production
117
Combined Nuclear-Fossil Fuel
Systems for Liquid Fuels
Recovery of Heavy Oil and Shale Oil for Liquid Fuels
Production Requires Massive Amounts of Heat
Nuclear Can Supply That Heat and Reduce Greenhouse
Impacts from Liquid Fuels Production
Potential Option for Peak Electricity with Recovery of
(1) Heavy Oils and (2) Shale Oil
Very Limited Analysis: Early R&D
118
World Fossil Fuel Resources
Heavy Oil and Shale Oil May Replace Light Oil
But Require Massive Heat Input for Recovery
Feedstock for
Liquid Fuel
% World Hydrocarbons Heat Input Into Production
As Fraction of Heating
Value of Liquid Fuel
Oil 2-3% 6-10%
Heavy Oil 5-7% 25-40%
Natural Gas 4-6%
Gas Hydrates 10-30%
Oil Shale 30-50% >30%
Coal/Lignite 20-30%
Biomass Annual To 40%
C. W. Forsberg, “Nuclear Power: Energy to Produce Liquid Fuels and Chemicals,” Chemical Engineering Progress, July 2010;
M. B. Dusseault, Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand in The Canadian Oil Industry, 2002
119
• Heavy oil does not
flow at room
temperature
• Oil recovery by
heating rock to lower
viscosity until oil
flows: expect 60+%
recovery
• Requires massive
quantities of heat
• Option to use heat
from nuclear reactor
120
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
Current Technology for Oil Sand Recovery
Advanced Heating System With Clean
Steam or Hot Pressurized Water
Advancing Drilling Technologies for Natural Gas Are
Creating New Nuclear Heat Options for Heavy Oil
Recovery
121
Option for Peak Electricity
and Heavy Oil Recovery
Nuclear power plant operates at full load
Heat rock at times of low electricity demand
Excess heat available: Low value of electricity
Rock heating is a slow process—can be discontinued for
days or longer
Electricity production at times of high demand
Reservoir depth determines steam injection
pressure to match pressure at depth
Sealed pipe systems may enable use of LWR
heat—Choice of pressure inside piping
12
2
Nuclear Geothermal Peak Electricity With
Oil, Heavy Oil or Tar Sands Recovery
Cycles of Hot Pressurized Water (Heat Injection) and
Cold Water (Heat Recovery) Wash Out Oil
Move heat storage zone over time to recover oil
Advantages Potential for very high oil recovery
Recover the 20 to 50% of oil left after traditional oil recovery
Recover heavy oil
Hot water heating allows any depth of oil recovery
Steam injection limited because steam condenses at higher
pressures
Disadvantages Early R&D—many unknowns
Complex power plant with oil/water separators
123
Miscellaneous
Observations
124
System Power Rating (MW)
Gigawatt-Year
Heat and Hydrogen
Dis
ch
arg
e T
ime
(S
ec
on
ds
) 125
Storage Technologies & Capabilities
Hour
Day
Second
Year
Renewable Natural Gas (NG) Challenge
Renewables capacity factors ~30%
Require 100% backup
No solar at night
Wind does go to ~zero over a distances of 500 kilometers
Renewable mandates today are NG mandates (70% of energy
supplied) unless access to very large quantities of hydro
NG is burnt two ways—choice makes a difference*
Combined cycle (gas turbine with steam bottoming cycle): efficient
Combustion turbine: cheap but 50% more NG per unit of electricity
Long experience with fast response to match wind variation
NG-wind system can use more NG that just NG with combined cycle
Potential for large rise in NG prices
Oil companies are building Fischer-Tropsch NG to diesel plants
Directly couples price of NG to the price of oil
126
•G. Taylor, Cost and Fuel Consumption of Gas, Wind, and Nuclear Generation,
Trans. American Nuclear Society, 104, Hollywood, Florida, June 26-30, 2011