Alternative Nuclear Energy Futures

Transcription

1 1 Alternative Nuclear Energy Futures Peak Electricity, Hydrogen, and Liquid Fuels Charles Forsberg Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Ave; Bld a; Cambridge, MA Tel: (617) ; World Nuclear University Institute Christ Church, Oxford, England Tuesday July 10, 2012 MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems File: Nuclear Renewable Futures; Oxford WWU 2011 July

2 2 Alternative Nuclear Energy Futures Charles Forsberg

3 The Energy Challenge 3

4 Energy Futures May Be Determined By Two Sustainability Goals No Imported Crude Oil No Climate Change 4 Romania Bulgaria Ukraine Blac k Sea Russia Kazakhstan Aral Sea Middle East Georgia Caspian Uzb ekistan Greece Turkey Armenia Azerbaijan Sea Turkmenistan Lake Van Lake Urmia Cyprus Syria Lebanon Mediterranean Sea Israel Suez Canal Jordan Iraq Iraq Iran Iran Afghanistan Pakistan Egypt Gulf of Suez Tropic of Cancer Lake Nasser Gulf of Aqaba Persian Gulf Strait of Hormuz Saudi Arabia Qatar Oman Bahrain Gulf of Oman United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia Oman Red Sea Sudan Eritrea T'ana Hayk Ethiopia Djibouti Yemen Gulf of Aden Somalia Arabian Sea Socotra (Yem en) kilometers miles Athabasca Glacier, Jasper National Park, Alberta, Canada Photo provided by the National Snow and Ice Data Center 2050 Goal: Reduce Greenhouse Gases by 80%

5 Oil and Gas Reserves Are Concentrated in the Persian Gulf Reserves of Leading Oil and Gas Companies 5 Rank Company Total Oil/Gas Reserves: Oil Equivalent (10 9 Barrels) 1 National Iranian Oil Company Saudi Arabian Oil Company Qatar General Petroleum Corp Iraq National Oil Company 136 Non-Government Corporations 14 ExxonMobil Corp BP Corp. 13 Price and Availability are Political Decisions

6 6 Three-Component Energy Challenge Electricity Liquid Fuels Hydrogen (The Hidden Challenge)

7 Demand (10 4 MW(e)) 7 Variable Electricity Demand New England Electrical Gird Today Nuclear Is Designed for Base Load Electricity Time (hours since beginning of year)

8 8 Carbon: Fossil fuel (CH x ) Biomass (CHOH) Atmosphere (CO 2 ) Need for Liquid Fuels Energy: Fossil fuel Biomass Nuclear Products: Ethanol Biofuels Diesel Hydrogen Fossil Fuel Biomass Water Feedstock Conversion Process Inputs: Carbon, Energy, and Hydrogen

9 Greenhouse Impacts (g CO 2 -eq/mile in SUV) Source of Greenhouse Impacts Nuclear Energy Can Supply Lower-Grade Feed Stocks Require More Heat and H 2 to Produce Diesel Fuel Vehicle Greenhouse-Gas Emissions Vs Feedstock to Make Diesel Fuel Transportation/Distribution Conversion/Refining Extraction/Production End Use Combustion Business As Usual Making and Delivering of Fuel Using Fuel 0 Wyoming Sweet Crude Oil Pipeline Natural Gas (Fisher-Tropsch Liquids) Venezuelan Syncrude Illinois #6 Coal Baseline (Fisher-Tropsch Liquids) Feedstock

10 10 Hydrogen Input for Liquid Fuels, Chemicals, and Other Uses 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?

11 Hydrogen The Storable Energy Bridge Between the Electricity and Fuels Markets Underground commercial H 2 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 11 Chevron Phillips Clemens Terminal for H x 1000 ft cylinder in salt deposit Many geology options

12 12 The Variable Electricity Challenge Electricity Storage for a Low-Carbon World Storage May Drive Energy Production Choices

13 Demand (10 4 MW(e)) 13 Variable Electricity Demand New England Electrical Gird About 2/3 Electricity is Base-Load Time (hours since beginning of year)

14 Variable Electricity Demand Met By Hydro (Limited Availability) and Gas Turbines 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 14

15 Demand (10 4 MW(e)) If Nuclear Electricity and Perfect Storage U.S.: Base-load Electricity Market 50% Larger ~7% of Electricity to Storage to Meet Peak Demand 15 New Base Load With Storage Existing Base Load Time (hours since beginning of year)

16 Output (MWe) California Demand Vs. All-Nuclear, All-Wind, or All-Solar Electricity Production KWh Produced/Year By Each Method = KWh Consumed/Year 16 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Demand (Actual) Wind (Projected) Solar (Projected) Nuclear 10,000 Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Dates (2005) If No Fossil Fuels for Electricity, How Match Production With Demand?

17 California Electricity Storage Requirements As Fraction of Total Electricity Produced Assuming Perfect No-Loss Storage Systems 17 Electricity Production Hourly Actual demand Yearly Constant Demand Each Week a All-Nuclear All-Wind All-Solar Massive seasonal storage requirements Renewables viability depends upon seasonal storage a Assume Smart Grid, Batteries, Hydro, etc for Daily Energy Storage 1 Steady-state nuclear; 2 NREL wind and solar trough model (with limited storage) using CA wind / solar data

18 18 Energy Storage is the Cost Challenge for a Low-Carbon World 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

19 19 Gigawatt-Year Nuclear- Geothermal Heat Storage Seasonal Energy Storage Status: Early R&D Initial Assessment: Commercially Viable

20 Hundreds of of Meters Meters Geothermal Heat Storage System Create Artificial Geothermal Heat Source 20 Thermal Input to Rock Thermal Output From Rock Cap Rock Nuclear Plant Fluid Return Oil Permeable Shale Rock Pressurized Water for Heat Transfer Geothermal Plant Fluid Input Nesjavellir Geothermal power plant; Iceland; 120MW(e); Wikimedia Commons (2010)

21 21 Nuclear-Geothermal Storage Is Based On Two Technologies Recovery of Heavy Oil By Reservoir Heating California and Canada Geothermal Power Plant Heat Extraction Storage Figure courtesy of Schlumberger; Nesjavellir Geothermal power plant, Iceland: 120MW(e); Wikimedia Commons (2010)

22 Heat Storage Must Be Large to Avoid Excessive Heat Losses Intrinsic Large-Scale Nuclear Storage System 22 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Heat Capacity ~ Volume (L 3 ) L ~ 400 m No Insulation Heat Losses ~6L 2 Must minimize fluid loss Can not insulate rock Heat loses ~ surface area Heat capacity ~ volume Large storage has smaller fractional heat loses

23 23 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

24 24 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

25 Hybrid Electricity and Fuels System 25 Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand Steam Electricity Variable Heat / Electricity To Fuels Production: Fully Use Nuclear and Renewables Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

26 26 Example Hybrid System Nuclear Renewables Oil-Shale System Laboratory/Pilot Plant Development

27 Global Shale Oil Reserves Far Exceed Conventional Oil 27

28 Conventional Shale Oil Production Non-Nuclear Operating Pilot Plants 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 28

29 The Shell In Situ Conversion Process: Heat Oil Shale Electrically to Release Liquid Fuel Refrigeration Wells 29 Overburden Producer Wells Heater Wells Oil Shale Ice Wall (Isolate In-Situ Retort)

30 Can Use Nuclear Heat (Steam in Pipes) For In-Situ Oil Shale Retorting 30 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

31 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

32 LWR Renewables Shale-Oil System 32 Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand Steam Electricity Steam Heat of Oil Shale to 210 C Electricity to Heat Steam for Oil Shale to 370 C Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

33 High-Electricity-Price Operations Low Renewables Output: Night, Winter, Etc. 33 Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand Steam Electricity Steam Heat of Oil Shale to 210 C Electricity to Heat Steam for Oil Shale to 370 C Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

34 Low-Electricity-Price Operations 34 Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand Steam Electricity Steam Heat of Oil Shale to 210 C Electricity to Heat Steam for Oil Shale to 370 C Natural Gas Option Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

35 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

36 36 Example Hybrid System Nuclear Renewable Electricity and Hydrogen System Pilot Plant Stage of Development

37 Deregulated Electricity Markets Have Some Cheap Electricity Electricity Prices versus Hours Available 37 If Large-Scale Renewables, More Cheap Electricity When the Sun Shines or Wind Blows (And low revenue for renewables) $ 0.0 Per MWh

38 Cheap Electricity Could Be Turned Into Valuable Hydrogen Alkaline electrolysis commercial for almost a century 2H 2 O + electricity 2H 2 + O 2 Efficiency: 66% LHV; Cell lifetime: 20 years 38 But Not Economic Because of High Capital Cost if Operate Electrolyzer 100s of hours/year

39 39 Potential Solution: Light Water Reactor High-Temperature Electrolysis Water + Electricity + Heat H 2 + O 2 Operates in reverse: Hydrogen Electricity Can convert low-priced electricity to hydrogen if low capital costs Development status: Pilot plant

40 Electricity and Hydrogen System Alternative Hybrid System 40 Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand Steam Electricity High-Temperature Electrolysis Hydrogen Production or Electricity Production Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

41 If Low Electricity Prices: H 2 Production Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand 41 Steam Electricity High-Temperature Electrolysis: Hydrogen Production Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

42 If High Electricity Prices: H 2 to Electricity Nuclear Reactor (Steam) Steam Turbine / Generator Variable Electricity Demand 42 Steam Electricity High-Temperature Electrolysis Operated in Reverse: Hydrogen to Peak Electricity Non Dispatchable Solar and Wind

43 Reversible Electrolysis in Market Electricity Prices versus Hours Available Electricity Hydrogen Electricity 43 Buy Electricity Sell Electricity

44 Reversibility of High-Temperature Electrolysis May Make Hydrogen Production Economic Primary mission: use cheap electricity to make hydrogen for liquid fuels Secondary mission: H 2 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 44

45 About 20% of Generating Capacity is to Meet Peak Power Demand 45 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

46 Electricity Future Nuclear Hydrogen Systems Nuclear H 2 / O 2 H 2 / O 2 Markets Power Plant From Water Storage 46 Electrolysis Underground Storage Same as Natural Gas Liquid Fuels Fertilizer Metals Heat Electricity High- Temperature Electrolysis Peak Power (Future)

47 47 Liquid Fuels Oil Supplies 35% of World Energy Transportation is the Key Issue (About equal to base-load electricity market)

48 48 Electric Transport Options Courtesy of the Electric Power Research Institute Electric car limitations Limited range Long recharge time (Gasolinerefueling 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

49 49 Three Inputs into Liquid Fuels Carbon: Fossil fuel (CH x ) Biomass (CHOH) Atmosphere (CO 2 ) Energy: Fossil fuel Biomass Nuclear Products: Ethanol Biofuels Diesel Hydrogen Fossil Fuel Biomass Water Feedstock Conversion Process Hydrogen Key Input for Lower Quality Feedstocks and Low CO 2 Biomass, Heavy oil, Oil Sands, Coal

50 We Will Not Run Out of Liquid Fuels But the Less a Feedstock Resembles Gasoline, The More Energy it Takes in the Conversion Process 50 Agricultural Residues Sugar Cane Urban Residues Coal

51 51 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

52 52 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

53 53 Biomass Fuels: A Potentially Low- Greenhouse-Gas Liquid-Fuel Option Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Energy Fossil Biomass Nuclear Biomass Liquid Fuels C x H y + (X + y 4 )O 2 CO 2 + ( y 2 )H 2O Fuel Factory Cars, Trucks, and Planes

54 Energy Value (10 6 barrels of diesel fuel equivalent per day) 54 U.S. Biomass Fuels Yield Depends On the Bio-Refinery Energy Source Biomass Energy to Operate Bio-refinery 12.4 U.S. Transport Fuel Demand Burn Biomass Convert to Ethanol Convert to Diesel Fuel with Outside Hydrogen and Heat Without Impacting Food and Fiber Production

55 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

56 Future Cellulosic Liquid-Fuel Options Biomass As Energy Source Nuclear as Energy Source Biomass 56 Cellulose (65-85% Biomass) Lignin (15-35% Biomass) Steam Hydrogen (small quantities) Steam Heat Ethanol Plant Steam Plant Lignin Plant Nuclear Reactor Ethanol Plant Electricity Ethanol Biomass Nuclear Biomass Gasoline/ Diesel 50% Increase Liquid Fuel/Unit Biomass Many Biofuels Options Leading Midterm Option Ethanol

57 57 Liquid Fuels From Air Unlimited Liquid Fuels If Energy Source

58 Liquid Fuels Can Be Made From Air More Energy Intensive Than Liquid Fuels from Biomass 58 Extract CO 2 Convert CO 2 and H 2 O To Syngas Heat + Electricity CO 2 + H 2 O CO + H 2 Fischer-Tropsch CO + H 2 Liquid Fuels From Air or Industrial Sources High Temperature Co-Electrolysis (One Option)

59 Energy Efficiency to Convert Air and Water into Diesel Primary Cost is Hydrogen Production 59 Reactor Light Water Reactor High-Temperature Reactor Reactor Heat to Liquid Fuel Reactor Heat to Electricity 22% 33% 31% 45% 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

60 Hundreds of of Meters Meters 60 Questions Oil Shale

61 61 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

62 Biography: Charles Forsberg 62 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.

63 63 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 nuclearrenewable 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.

64 References-I C. W. Forsberg, Sustainability by Combining Nuclear, Fossil, and Renewable Energy Sources, Progress in Nuclear Energy, 51, (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, C. W. Forsberg, Nuclear Energy for a Low-Carbon-Dioxide-Emission Transportation System with Liquid Fuels, Nuclear Technology, 164, December C. W. Forsberg, Use of High-Temperature Heat in Refineries, Underground Refining, and Bio-Refineries for Liquid-Fuels Production, HTR , 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, April 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, June 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, June 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, June G. Haratyk, Nuclear-Renewables Energy System for Hydrogen and Electricity Production, MS Thesis, MIT, June (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, June J. Galle-Bishop, Nuclear-Tanker Producing Liquid Fuels from Air and Water, MS Thesis, MIT, June (C. Forsberg: Thesis Advisor).

65 References-II 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 (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, 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). 65

66 66 Gigawatt-Year Nuclear- Geothermal Heat Storage Added Information

67 67 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)

68 Seasonal Storage Energy Losses 68 Fractional Energy Loss for Three Different Reservoir Sizes Indicate Minimum Size ~0.1 GW-year Fixed Parameters Inlet Temp. 250 o C, Outlet Temp. 30 o C, Porosity 0.2, D/L = 0.331, Cycle Length = 6 months

69 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 69 Total Electricit y Costs (Billion $) Generating Capacity (GWe) 10 GWe Base- Load Electricity 6-GWe Nuclear Geothermal Natural Gas

70 70 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

71 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 Mined out Zone crushed rock zone 71 Void volume in crushed rock matches voids of original mined rock zone

72 Create Permeable Rock Zone by Selective Dissolution 72 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

73 Hundreds of Meters Hundreds of Meters 73 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

74 74 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

75 75 Research and Development Needs Geology and mining Understand cycling rock temperatures Potential to clean up heat transfer geofluid (H 2 O or CO 2 ) 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

76 76 Hydrogen Added Information

77 77 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

78 78 Hydrogen Production Today Steam reforming of fossil fuels CH 4 + H 2 O CO + 3 H 2 CO + H 2 O CO 2 + H 2 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

79 High-Temperature Electrolysis (HTE) Steam Electrolysis of Water: Status--Small Pilot Tests 79 2H 2 O + Electricity + Heat 2H 2 + O 2 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 Cell (Courtesy of INL and Ceramatec)

80 80 HTE With Light-Water Reactors Electrolytic cell at 800 C Steam at 200 to 300 C Heat steam to cell temperatures Hot H 2 and O 2 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% High-Temperature Electrolysis Cell (Courtesy of INL and Ceramatec)

81 LWR High-Temperature Electrolysis 81 Option for Variable Electricity and Heat Output from Light Water Reactor

82 82 Thermochemical Cycles 2H 2 O + Heat 2H 2 + O 2 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

83 MIT Nuclear-Wind Study 83 Potential economic wind in Midwest (Blue and Purple) How to export stranded renewable energy?

84 Nuclear-Wind-H 2 -Natural Gas Option Test case Minimize Electricity Storage Electricity 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

85 Test Case Based on Midwest Grid Parts of U.S. and Canada 85 Average: 61.8 GWe Peak: 96.5 GWe Minimum: 39.5 GWe

86 Structure of Nuclear-Renewable Electric-Hydrogen System Base-Load Nuclear Power Plant Electricity and / or Steam Output High-Capital- Cost Systems Operate at High- Capacity Factors Wind or Solar (Partial Gas Turbine Backup) Medium-Voltage Electricity Steam/ Heat High Temperature Electrolysis Hydrogen Underground Hydrogen Storage High-Voltage Electricity Fuel Cell Hydrogen Pipeline Two Products! Variable Electricity To Local Grid Steady State Export of Hydrogen to Industrial Users 86 86

87 87 High-Temperature Electrolysis (HTE) May Be the Critical Technology Uses cheap heat from nuclear plants to partly replace expensive electricity for H 2 production 2 H 2 O + Electricity + Heat 2 H 2 + O 2 When high electricity demand, operates in reverse as fuel cell (FC) to produce electricity 1-GWe Nuclear-HTE: 2H 2 + O 2 Electricity + 2H 2 O 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

88 Reversible High-Temperature Electrolysis Fuel Cell May Reduce Capital Costs Midwest ISO Generation Vs Generator Hours/year 88 Excess Electricity H 2 Replace Gas Turbines with HTE / FC H 2 Electricity

89 System Economics Assuming Reductions in Wind Capital Costs, Reductions in HTE-FC Costs, and Increase Natural Gas Prices Nuclear base-load to minimize expensive energy storage (Electricity Storage Electricity) Low-cost industrial hydrogen Operations: Electricity for H 2 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 89

90 90 Nuclear Wind Natural-Gas System No H 2 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

91 Alternative System: Nuclear Wind Excess Electricity Converted to H 2 Times of High Wind, Low-Electricity-Demand Same Last Week of June 2009 Data 91 High-Temperature Electrolysis Cells Operated as Fuel Cells at Other Times of the Week

92 Alternative System: H 2 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 H 2 ) 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

93 Electricity Generation Breakdown H 2 Fuel Cells (HTE Units in Reverse) Provide Large Peak Capacity But Small Fraction of the Total Electricity (0.5%) 93 Reversible HTE/FC Can Help Pay the Capital Cost of Electrolysis

94 94 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

95 95 Biofuels Production Economics Biofuels Availability Country Dependent Thanks to Bruce Dale at Michigan State University for Selected Slides on Biofuels

96 Impact of Processing Improvements: Oil s Past & Future 96 Relative Cost Early Years Today's Mature Processes Future Oil Processing From J. Stoppert, 2005

97 Cost of biomass, $/ton Biomass Feedstock Cost Competitive Energy content 150 Projected Cellulosic Biomass Prices Current Oil Prices ~ $100/barrel Cost of oil, $/barrel Adapted from Lynd & Wyman

98 Future of Cellulosic Biofuels Production Depends Upon Reducing Processing Costs 98 Today Relative Cost? Future 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 Adapted from J. Stoppert, 2005

99 Densifying Biomass Would Enable Efficient Shipment to Large Biorefineries 99 Convert regional, distinct biomass sources into dense, stable, shippable intermediate commodities with uniform characteristics

100 Densification Processes Are Being Developed 100 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)

101 101 Cellulosic Densification Improves Economics / Supports Nuclear Biofuels Today Relative Cost? Future Enables large biorefineries Economics of scale to match oil refineries Massive energy demand that matches large nuclear-powerplant scale Massive demand for low-temperature heat Adapted from J. Stoppert, 2005

102 In Some Cases Nuclear Biofuels Competitive Today (Corn Ethanol) 102 Ethanol from corn requires lowtemperature 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

103 103 Liquid Fuels From Air Unlimited Liquid Fuels If Energy Source

104 Liquid Fuels Can Be Made From Air More Energy Intensive Than Liquid Fuels from Biomass 104 Extract CO 2 Convert CO 2 and H 2 O To Syngas Heat + Electricity CO 2 + H 2 O CO + H 2 Fischer-Tropsch CO + H 2 Liquid Fuels From Air or Industrial Sources High Temperature Co-Electrolysis (One Option)

105 105 Liquid Fuels From Air The Ultimate Source of Liquid Fuels Extract CO 2 from Air Water to Hydrogen: 2H 2 O 2H 2 + O 2 Produce Syngas: H 2 + CO CO + H 2 O Convert Syngas to Gasoline and Diesel (FT) (2n+1)H 2 + nco C n H 2n+2 + nh 2 O (Paraffins) 2nH 2 + nco C n H 2n + nh 2 O (Olefins) Energy Input: Primarily to Make Hydrogen

106 Energy Efficiency to Convert Air and Water into Diesel Primary Cost is Hydrogen Production 106 Reactor Light Water Reactor High-Temperature Reactor Reactor Heat to Liquid Fuel Reactor Heat to Electricity 22% 33% 31% 45% 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

107 107 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

108 Conclusions-II: Need to Develop and Commercialize Interface Technologies Technology Example Need Nuclear Geothermal Heat Storage Nuclear-Renewable Hydrogen Electricity Nuclear Biofuels System Development High-Temperature Electrolysis / Fuel Cell 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

109 109 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

110 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

111 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, Beef 72,645 25, Hogs 60,234 6, Sheep 10, Egg production 446,900 2, Broilers produced 8,542,000 9, Turkeys produced 269,500 1, Total consumed by U.S. livestock 56,630 1,040, Human requirements 5,

112 Regional Biomass Processing Depots: Evaluating Scenarios 112

113 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

114 114

115 115 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

116 Biomass is a Better Carbon Source than Energy Source 116 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

117 117 Liquid Fuel Yields per Ton of Biomass Increase with External Energy Inputs Feedstock Corn starch to ethanol (today) Biomass to ethanol, gasoline, and diesel Biomass to gasoline & diesel Nuclear Energy Input Low-temperature heat Low-temperature heat and some hydrogen Hydrogen Nuclear-Geothermal Heat Storage and Hydrogen Production Are Supporting Technologies for Nuclear-Biomass Fuels Production

118 118 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

119 World Fossil Fuel Resources Heavy Oil and Shale Oil May Replace Light Oil But Require Massive Heat Input for Recovery 119 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

120 Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage Current Technology for Oil Sand Recovery 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

121 Advanced Heating System With Clean Steam or Hot Pressurized Water 121 Advancing Drilling Technologies for Natural Gas Are Creating New Nuclear Heat Options for Heavy Oil Recovery

122 Option for Peak Electricity and Heavy Oil Recovery 12 2 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

123 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

124 124 Miscellaneous Observations

125 Discharge Time (Seconds) Storage Technologies & Capabilities 125 Year Day Hour Gigawatt-Year Heat and Hydrogen Second System Power Rating (MW)

126 126 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 G. Taylor, Cost and Fuel Consumption of Gas, Wind, and Nuclear Generation, Trans. American Nuclear Society, 104, Hollywood, Florida, June 26-30, 2011