CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY: CAN TECHNOLOGY BEAT GLOBAL WARMING?
-
Upload
clark-benjamin -
Category
Documents
-
view
35 -
download
2
description
Transcript of CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY: CAN TECHNOLOGY BEAT GLOBAL WARMING?
04/19/[email protected]
1
CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY: CAN TECHNOLOGY BEAT
GLOBAL WARMING?
A Cost Analysis of Fossil, Nuclear, & Renewable Energy Options and how they
can evolve in the 21st Century.
Predictions of Doom merely point out avoidable futures.
Brendan McNamara, Leabrook Computing,2006MIT January 2007
UKAEA Culham March 2007
04/19/[email protected]
2
SUMMARY
•Motivated by UK Energy Review of 2006.
•Fair comparison basis of all costs for Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Wind, & Solar
• 3 Cost Comparisons: Costs for kW-hours, Power Stations, and 50 year Power Systems
HOMEWORK
•Examine Technical Solutions for problems of each option.
•Discuss Local, National, and International actions to beat Global Warming.
04/19/[email protected]
3
CARBON DIOXIDE
Atmosphere 2800 Gt
Ocean 143,000 GtAbsorbs 8.5 Gt/yr
Land 9170 GtAbsorbs 3.8 Gt/yr
Fossil Fuels Emit 24 Gt/yrFOSSIL RESERVESOil 542 GtGas 347 Gt
Coal 2454 GtCoal 2454 Gt
04/19/[email protected]
4
UK ENERGY REVIEW 2006“CANYON HORIZON”
WITH 3 MISSING MATTERS
• NO NEW TECHNOLOGIES
• PEAK OIL IGNORED
• IMPACT OF POVERTY ON ENERGY SECURITY UNMENTIONED
Note:Australian Review, Nov. 2006 is very similar.
04/19/[email protected]
5
PEAK OIL & GAS• ASPO
predictions.
• Pre-2005 is jagged. Economy follows.
• US DoE: Massive mitigation needed 20 yrs before peak.
• We MUST avoid resource wars!!
04/19/[email protected]
6
CO2 SCENARIOS• Population 8Bn
• A1F1: Business as usual Meltdown
• B1: Service & IT economy. Low technology.
• A1T: Technolgy growth with equity.
• Peak Oil, War, Poverty ignored.
04/19/[email protected]
7
YOUR ENERGY BILLS
English home uses ~3500kWh per year at 8.5 p/kWh
&~30,000kWh of Gas Central Heating at
2.4 p/kWh
Annual Cost ~ £1021( x 1.85 in US $)
EU Car: 10,000m @ 30 mph & 30mpgUses 30,000 kWh for £1200
04/19/[email protected]
8
COSTS I: 8 ENERGY SYSTEMSpence/kWh (RAE)
Fig. 1. ELECTRICITY COST COMPONENTS
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
PWR GT-MHR WindOnshore
Coal 2006 GasCCGT
WindOffshore
MicroWind
MicroSolar PV
2006StreetPrice
p/k
Wh
r
PLANT FUEL EXTRA FUEL WASTE/CO2 BACKUP
04/19/[email protected]
9
PV SOLAR ROOFTOP
Panels: £4k – £6k /kWp
UK Annual kWh : 1004 kWh/kWp
Service Life : 20 years
Solar Electricity : 19-30p/kWh
SHELL SOLAR
M.P. Peter Hain, ‘Doing his bit.’ Sunshine in Oxford & Mallorca
04/19/[email protected]
10
ROOFTOP WINDMILL
Windmill: £1874 for 1 kWp
UK Annual kWh : 1000 kWh
= 1 MWh
Service Life : 10 years
Windmill Electricity is 18.7 p/kWh
04/19/[email protected]
12
WELSH WINDMILL SITE
• Windmill farms occupy far more land than just their windmill footprints.
04/19/[email protected]
13
A 632MW WINDMILL FARM• ENERGY
ASSESSMENT OF TAN 8 WIND ENERGY STRATEGIC SEARCH AREAS for Welsh Development Agency
• 316 x 80m high Windmills at 2MW each.
• 35% duty factor? Output is spiky & intermittent, average 221 MW.
• Roads, services, forest clearance.
04/19/[email protected]
14
DANISH WIND FARMS
• 5240 windmills• 3.1 GWe peak• 80% Exported
to Norway.• Norway uses
98% Hydro
• No CO2 displaced
04/19/[email protected]
15
COAL & GAS
GAS: Depends on the price of gas.
GAS power was cheap in 2003. Now it is more expensive than Coal.
COAL: The dirtiest fuel.
Neither should be built without CO2 WASTE DISPOSAL.
04/19/[email protected]
16
CARBON CAPTURE & STORAGE
•IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – CCS Costs, 2006
•Supercritical boilers make Coal up to 50% efficient.
•Capture equipment for ALL emissions (SO2, NO, CO2 …) is expensive.
•Pipelines in densely populated UK are the most expensive.
•CO2 burial in DISTANT MARINE oilfields is the most costly.
•IS CCS TOO COSTLY FOR THE UK?
04/19/[email protected]
18
CCS + EOR in BOURNEMOUTH BAY
BP Wytch Farm 1 Gb OilfieldIn Depletion.
Closes in 2015 without some Extended Oil Recovery
3GW Coal Station with CCSPumps CO2 to recover3 Barrels oil per tonne.
04/19/[email protected]
19
CCS TOO LATE?
D.Hawkins, NRDC, 2006This reflects current policy and is not inevitable
04/19/[email protected]
20
- LIQUID FUELS -MORE VALUABLE THAN
ELECTRICITY?Coal-to-Diesel
1 tonne Coal Syngas Fischer-Tropf 2 Barrels Diesel +
2.7 tonnes CO2Montana/Wyoming
$35/barrelAustralia + CCS
$50/barrelNuclear Process Heat converts all Coal to
Diesel. (Forsberg, ORNL)Opencast Coal Mine in Transvaal
04/19/[email protected]
21
FRENCH EPR REACTOR
PROBLEM: SPENT FUEL TREATED AS WASTEPROBLEM: SPENT FUEL TREATED AS WASTE
04/19/[email protected]
22
‘SPENT FUEL’ IS STILL FUEL
SPENT FUEL IS 94.5% FUEL.
PWR FUEL
4.5% 235U
95.5% 238U
SPENT FUEL1.1% 235U
92.0% 238U
0.12% Acts.
1.3% Pu
5.5% ASH
04/19/[email protected]
23
MILLION YEAR TRISO FUEL
Contains all fission Products for 1 million years
Any Fuel: U, Pu, Actinides enriched to 20%
No Pu leakage to contaminate structures No long lived ILW
04/19/[email protected]
24
DEEP BURN GT-MHR
4842
3630
24
General Atomics: Inflammable – No Meltdown –
Burns U, Pu, Actinide Waste – High Temperature (900 C)
50% Thermal Efficiency – No Pu leakage – 300 year ILW.
Weapons Pu Burner in RussiaGA, Framatome, Minatom, Toshiba
04/19/[email protected]
25
UK NUCLEAR HISTORYSIZEWELL-A
MAGNOX
SIZEWELL-B PWR
14 YEAR FILIBUSTER
CANCELLED 8 NEW REACTORS
500 Mt CO2
SIZEWELL-CFRENCH EPR
04/19/[email protected]
26
AGR CORE ASSEMBLYMAGNOX RUN ON NATURAL URANIUM.
AGRs USE LOW ENRICHMENT – 3.5%.
HARD TO MAINTAIN.
SIZEWELL PWR – end of the line for UK AGRs.
ALL UK NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE CLOSED OR SOLD AT GIVEAWAY PRICES
04/19/[email protected]
27
COSTS II. For GWe YEARS
Fig. 2. CAPITAL COSTS FOR GWe-YEAR PLANTS. Micro Wind £16Bn & Micro Solar £35Bn not shown.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
PWR GT-MHR Wind Onshore Coal 2006 GasCCGT
Wind Offshore
£Bil
lio
n
PLANT WITH CO2 Capture & Store
04/19/[email protected]
28
CONSERVATION
Vital to slow the decline of oil & gas.
Electrify Public TransportEfficient engines, New Fuels, Carpools
Enforce efficiency in all appliances, buildings, and industries.
Cut waste from your energy budget.Woollen Sweaters, Cold Showers.
04/19/[email protected]
29
COSTS III. UK 10GWe x 50 Years
Fig. 3. TOTALS FOR 10 GWe SYSTEMS FOR 50 YEARS
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
PWR GT-MHR Wind Onshore Coal 2006 Gas CCGT Wind Offshore
£ B
illi
on
s
PLANT WASTE FUEL BACKUP EXTRA FUEL CO2 CAPTURE & STORE
04/19/[email protected]
30
NUCLEAR FUELS
All Thorium, Uranium, Plutonium, Neptunium, & higher Actinides can be transmuted and fissioned.
Each tonne yields 1000 MWth-days
DT Fusion fuel gives 5000 MWth-days
+DEPLETED 0.3% 235U
NATURAL 0.7% 235U
ENRICHED 4.5 %
04/19/[email protected]
32
20 Mt URANIUM: IAEA RED BOOK
Uranium: Assured, Expected, Speculative
0.42 0.251
2.559 2.040.5643
0.2102
0.914 1.833
0.47460.1044
0.1044
1.178
0.615
0.0996
0.18
2.6
0.242
0.219
0.5826
4.476
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
RAR EAR-I EAR-2 SPEC
Decreasing Confidence
U3O
8 M
ton
nes
N.A FSU Aus Africa Rest
750 PWRs WILL USE ALL THIS URANIUM
04/19/[email protected]
33
6 URANIUM RESOURCE MODELS
• W. Schneider, LANL: All 6 models assume supply driven by price.
• WNA (SC-O) gives S ~ P 3.35 Over 1000x DANESS model at $250/kg.
• Gen IV FCCG-E model allows $200/kg for seawater extraction at 1t per billion tonnes water.
• Conclusion: All guesswork with too little data. Must have exploration.
04/19/[email protected]
34
FAST BREEDER REACTORS
• High power density ~100MW/m3 . Fast neutrons• Breeds 15% more Pu then U-235 burned.
04/19/[email protected]
37
NUCLEAR FUEL STOCKPILES• The UK will have 106,000 tonnes of Depleted
Uranium in stock by 2020
• This is enough to meet all current UK electricity & transport need for 600 years.
• Over the next 50 years the Nuclear Powered countries may capture all the mineable Uranium on the planet.
• This is enough to run 10,000 reactors for 1000 years.
04/19/[email protected]
38
• Propose geological storage for all spent fuel, depleted Uranium, and ILW.
• WRONG• Should build Nuclear Fuel Vaults good for
1000 years.• Should build Advanced Fuel Cycle &
TRISO reprocessing plants.• Should reserve all 300 year ‘waste’ of
valuable metals.• Should put the small amounts of ash and
long lived waste in deep disposal.
UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
04/19/[email protected]
39
SAFETY TECHNOLOGYCOMPUTERISED OPERATIONS
WIRELESS INSTRUMENTATION, RADIATION MONITORING
GPS & ID TAGS ON ALL NUCLEAR MATERIALS
DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING, REAL TIME SYSTEMS, HAND HELD MAINTENANCE MONITORS
FLY-BY-WIRE PLANT CONTROL
IAEA REMOTE CONTROL & MONITORINGSATELLITE NETWORKING, COMPLETE SURVEILLANCE
STRONG ENCRYPTION
- PERSONNEL –
THE MOST DANGEROUS COMPONENTSBIOMETRICS, CCTV, LOCATION TRACKING
LAYERED ACCESS CONTROL, ACTIVE SECURITY
04/19/[email protected]
40
JET – FUSION BREAKEVENWorld’s most successful Fusion machine
Programme lost 10 years to politics.
JET Completed thanks to the Bader-Meinhof gang
Proved Fusion Physics with global inputs
.
04/19/[email protected]
41
ITER – A 40 YEAR EXPERIMENTITER: International Tokamak delays: 15 yrs to design+ 10 to build +10 to run = 35 yrs.
Can this be ACCELERATED?
No Meltdowns
No bomb materials
No long lived waste
04/19/[email protected]
42
CONTRIVED ‘MARKETS’, EMISSIONS TRADING
& CARBON TAXES•EuroTS: Misguided social engineering•UK company paid China £400M to capture refrigerant waste. Carbon Abatement Certs. Sold at £500M to run UK Coal stations.•ETS == Cash Capture & Storage•Carbon Taxes are just government revenue. Not Energy Neutral.•Market Forces are about maximum profit, not minimum pollution.
04/19/[email protected]
43
Energy Research funding in the US & EU fell by 90% in the 1980s.
UK Stern Economic Review of Climate Change (2006) suggests
Energy R&D should now be doubled
Society needs Energy.
Utilities are businesses.
Society must pay for Energy R&D&D
ENERGY R&D&D
04/19/[email protected]
44
3 ENERGY TREATIES
1. OIL DEPLETION PROTOCOL –ASPO
2. FOSSIL CARBON & CCS TREATY – Kyoto II
3. NUCLEAR ENERGY AND WEAPONS PROLIFERATION TREATY – ‘NEWPT, RUN BY IAEA
04/19/[email protected]
45
UNILATERAL ACTIONPOLICY DEMONSTRATIONS
•CALIFORNIA: First on Vehicle Emissions
•CALIFORNIA: No long term contracts with polluting electricity vendors - 2006
•CONGESTION CHARGING - London
•CARPOOLS – Big Employers, Schools
•TOLL ROADS – Free to low emission vehicles.
•100X MOTORWAY BUSES (Monbiot: ‘Heat’)
04/19/[email protected]
46
LOCAL INITIATIVESLIFESTYLE CHANGES
•COVER CARPARKS for Sunday Markets of local and State products.
•HOME DELIVERY Same day service at all shopping centres with improved bus services
•FREE PARKING for diesel & Low emissions vehicles & local Carpools. Adjust fees to maintain revenues.
DEVELOPMENT•NO NEW COMMUTER DEVELOPMENTS – must be self sufficient.
•50% HOUSING TAX REDUCTIONS for Passivhaus homes.
•SELECT LOCAL WINDMILL FARM SITES
•SELECT LOCAL NUCLEAR PARK SITES
04/19/[email protected]
47
CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY
WINNING TECHNOLOGIES
BASE LOAD• COAL with CCS 100-200 years• NUCLEAR 1000-3000 years• FUSION Indefinite
INTERMITTENT• WIND Indefinite• SOLAR Indefinite
TRANSPORT
• ELECTRIC, BIOFUELS,H2 Indefinite
04/19/[email protected]
48
WE CAN WIN THIS ONE•But we are on our own 5 yard line•On fourth down•Our best players are on the bench•And Cheerleaders for Conservation are only a pretty distraction.
•The defense has fielded their heaviest political & corporate players
•So we must pull out all the stops•Cover all the bases•And go for the long bomb.
•Go Team!
04/19/[email protected]
49
GET IT RIGHT FOR THEM!
Rich English girl, Zoe(2)
On the back of a $3/day porter
mountaineering in Nepal.
THANK YOU
04/19/[email protected]
50
REFERENCES1. ASPO. Association for the Study of Peak Oil. www.peakoil.net2. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 20063. C. J. Campbell. ‘Oil Crisis’. Multi-Science Publishing, 2005. The definitive work on Peak Oil.4. CORWM: Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. ‘Managing Our Radioactive Waste Safely’, August 2006. www.corwm.or.uk5. Deutch, D., Moniz, A. “The Nuclear Option”, Scientific American 2006. Special Issue on ‘Energy’s Future: Beyond Carbon’6. DTI Energy Challenge. www.dti.gov.uk7. C. W. Forsberg, “Assessment of Nuclear-Hydrogen Synergies with Renewable Energy Systems and Coal Liquefaction Processes“,
ORNL/TM-2006/114, Oak Ridge Natl. Laboratory. 8. E. Lahoda, C.W. Forsberg, D. McGloghlin. “A Low-Greenhouse-Impact Hydrogen-based Fuels Future” AICE, San Francisco,Nov. 2006.9. Hawkins, D., Natural Resources Defense Council, New York. www.nrdc.org. G8-IEA-CSLF Workshop, August 2006, San Francisco10. IAEA General Conf., 2006. “New Framework for the Utilization of Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century:11.Assurances of Supply and Non-Proliferation”12.John Houghton. ‘Global Warming’. Cambridge Press, 2004. Definitive briefing on the science of global warming.13.House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) ‘Keeping the Lights On: Nuclear, Renewables, and Climate Change’ April 2006. 14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ‘Special report on Carbon Capture and Storage’, 2006.15.Christian N. Jardine,1 Gavin J. Conibeer2 and Kevin Lane. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 5, South Parks Road,
Oxford, OX1 3UB.16. ‘PV-COMPARE: Direct Comparison of Eleven PV Technologies at Two Locations in Northern and Southern Europe’17.Brendan McNamara. ‘ Nuclear Power – Facing Opposition’, June, 2005. Exposes the exaggerations used by Storm van Leeuwen & Smith
on CO2 emissions from Nuclear Power. Google – “Brendan McNamara” nuclear.18.Brendan McNamara. ‘ Nuclear Power in the UK 21st. Century Energy Mix’, Submitted to the UK DTI Energy Review 2006. Shows how Deep
Burn has been missed by the Review process. Google – “Brendan McNamara” nuclear.19.Brendan McNamara. ‘ Uranium: What is to be done?, Submitted to the UK DTI Energy Review 2006. Shows how Uranium supplies can be
reprocessed to supply 10,000 1 GWe reactors for 1000 years. Google – “Brendan McNamara” nuclear.20.MIT: ‘The Future of Nuclear Power’, 200321.Nirex. ‘The Implications of Declaring UK Uranium Stockpiles as Waste’, 2002.22.Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE). ‘The Cost of Generating Electricity’, 2004.23.Hugh Sharman, 24.http://ior.rml.co.uk/issue4/co2/inco2/summary.htm)25.Hugh Sharman. ‘Why UK Wind Power should not exceed 10GW’, Proc. Inst. Civil Eng., pp 161-169, 2006.26.A.Tjernshaugen, Centre for International Climate & Environmental Research – Oslo. ’ Political commitment to CCS in Europe and North
America:Evidence from government RD&D budgets’, May 2006
04/19/[email protected]
52
THORIUM REACTOR CYCLE• 232Th captures
thermal neutron. Transmutes to fissile 233U.
• Other transmutations happen by neutron capture, - decay, and decay.
• No high actinides – Cm, Am.
• Only non-weapons Pu isotope created.
• Radiotoxic 232U limits illicit diversion.
04/19/[email protected]
53
WEAPONS PROLIFERATION
• Proliferation is not really about Plutonium
• It is about politics, power, people, pride, property ….
04/19/[email protected]
54
ASSISTED PROLIFERATION
• Manhattan: Allies & Spies - Fuchs• McMahon Act Excluded Allies, 1946• H-bombs: USA ’52, USSR ’53, UK ‘57 ,
China ‘67, France ‘67 , India ’98, Pakistan?, Israel?
• Atoms for Peace, TRIGA reactors• Candu – Argentina, India, …• Israel – France, UK, US • Pakistan – France, China• Libya, Iran – Russia, Pakistan (Khan)• Iraq – France (Bombed by Israel)