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