Cal Poly ECi Proposal on Renewable Energy

Transcription

1 2011 Cal Poly ECi Proposal on Renewable Energy Mariana Brito Sam Dennis Tyler Grossheim Ashley Hart Will Yee Reference Page 0

2 Introduction By the year 2025, renewable energy sources (RES) could be required to generate 25% of the annual energy consumption in the US (a projected 27 quadrillion BTUs (quads) per year). In an effort to meet the upcoming legislation, the Cal Poly Society of Environmental Engineers () has developed an energy plan, which is presented in this paper. analyzed seven RES technologies, employing the use of a decision matrix to quantify the value of each source. evaluated common properties of the RES and then computed a single overall score. Each category was weighted to provide a subjective quantification in relation to the goals of the project. After a score was assigned to each technology, the ideal combination of RES was determined to reach an implementation goal that is economically viable, socially acceptable, and environmentally sustainable. Key Personnel put together a team of five experienced engineers to deliver a quality product for the legislative committee. s Project Manager is Ashley Hart, the head engineer with years of experience in renewable energy design. She is also responsible for the project s quality control and assurance. Project engineers Tyler Grossheim and Mariana Brito were responsible for designing sustainable, cost-effective solutions. Sam Dennis, s environmental scientist, evaluated the impacts associated with each considered technology, and William Yee served as s legal analyst. Technologies Evaluated Seven renewable technologies were evaluated for use. These technologies include wind, solar (photovoltaic and thermal), hydroelectric, biomass conversion, geothermal, and biofuel production. The evaluation of biofuels is only based on ethanol, as biodiesel is not yet feasible on a large-scale. The technologies chosen are renewable, viable, and able to be installed within the time frame of 14 years. Current usages of these RES are shown in Table 1. Technology Current Energy Usage (quad/yr) Table 1: Current Renewable Energy Usage 16 Wind Solar PV & Thermal Hydro Biomass Geothermal Biofuel

3 Wind: Wind energy can be converted into electricity using wind turbines. A wind farm consists of many wind turbines in the same general area, and is usually located in areas with high propensity for wind. Solar Photovoltaic: Solar energy is one of the most common RES, with photovoltaic (PV) cells being widely used around the country and the world. Photovoltaic cells convert sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconductors such as crystalline silicon or various thin-film materials. 13 Solar Thermal: Solar thermal devices use direct heat from the sun, concentrating it to produce heat at useful temperatures. Solar thermal devices do everything from heating swimming pools to creating steam for electricity generation. 17 Hydro: Hydropower is electrical energy derived from the force of moving water. This force typically comes from water falling from certain heights or natural tidal movements. Biomass: A large portion of biomass energy is used in the pulp and paper industries, where residues from production processes are combusted to produce steam and electricity. Sources of biomass conversion into energy include municipal solid waste combusted at waste-to-energy facilities, combustion of landfill gases, and sludge waste digestion to methane. 22 Geothermal: Geothermal energy is generated from heat pockets below the Earth s crust, which heat up surrounding water sources. The water either turns into steam naturally, is flashed into steam, or the heat from the water is transferred to a binary liquid using a heat exchanger turning the liquid into steam. The steam produced is used to run steam turbines and produce electricity. Ethanol: Corn ethanol is a volatile and flammable liquid produced from corn biomass through industrial fermentation, chemical processing, and distillation. Corn ethanol can be used as a gasoline supplement, 10 to 85 percent by volume. 14 Decision Categories The categories used for analysis include: cost, environmental impacts, feasibility, potential production, and process inputs. In each category, the technologies received a score of 1 to 10, which was then multiplied by the weighting factor to determine the overall score for the category (Table 2). 2

4 Table 2: Decision Matrix Categorical Weighting Factor Environmental Process Category Cost Impacts Feasibility Potential Inputs Weighting Factor Cost This category evaluates the cost to produce energy over the technology s lifetime. The cost was calculated in units of dollars per quadrillion BTUs produced, and was given a weighting factor of three. The results of the cost analysis are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Cost Category Scores and Attributes Technology Wind (1),(28),(27) Solar PV (21) Solar Thermal (21) Hydro (23) Biomass (4),(29),(30) Geothermal (2),(19) Capacity Factor 25% 15% 15% n/a 23% 16% n/a Operating Lifetime 20-year 20-year 20--year n/a 20-year 30-year n/a Cost (in Billions of Dollars) ii Ethanol (2),(19) Capital O&M i Calculation: Transportation Score (x 3) i Operation and Maintenance (O&M) ii - The cost to produce ethanol includes corn production and processing costs. 14 Costs Included in Environmental Impacts This category considers impacts on natural and ecological resources, waste generation, usage, and disposal, as well as effects on air and water quality, and was given a weighting factor of three. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Environmental Impact Scores Technology Wind Solar - PV Solar - Thermal Hydro Biomass Geothermal Ethanol Score (x 3) Wind: Turbines pose the threat of bird and bat mortality, which can both be mitigated with appropriate site design and operation. Other impacts include a large footprint and the resource and fossil fuel use during manufacturing. Manufacturing impacts have been shown to be made-up within 7 months of use. 37 Solar PV: Manufacturing PV cells requires hazardous materials, posing a threat to workers and requiring proper disposal. 3 The large footprint required can also be a problem, threatening wildlife, but this is not unique to solar systems. 3 consumed in their production is generated within the first 3 years of use. 7 The energy Solar Thermal: Like most conventional power plants, solar thermal ones require cooling water, which may be costly or scarce in desert areas. The large footprint required may also be a problem. 3 3

5 Hydro: Dams can disrupt and/or destroy aquatic habits, interrupt migration patterns, kill aquatic wildlife, and disrupt naval navigation. Biomass: Biomass contains less sulfur and nitrogen than coal, and when the role of renewable biomass in the carbon cycle is considered, the carbon dioxide emissions that result from co-firing biomass with coal are lower than those from burning coal alone. 34 Geothermal: Groundwater may contain toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Steam coming out of these sources may contain CO 2 and H 2 S, which can be released into the atmosphere if not properly treated. 8 If the water used is not fully cooled before discharge, it can harm wildlife in lakes or streams. 8 Seismic activity may also be caused due to removal of the groundwater and quickly cooling the rock in the Earth. 24 Ethanol: The environmental impacts can include land and water usage, water and air pollution caused by the growth process of industrialized agriculture, and the energy utilization process producing air pollution in the form of particulate matter and NO x. Feasibility This category evaluates how viable each energy source is, based on geographical location and existing resources, and was given a weighting factor of two. The feasibility analysis is shown in Table 5. Table 5: Feasibility Scores Technology Wind Solar - PV Solar - Thermal Hydro Biomass Geothermal Ethanol Score (x 2) Wind and Solar: Wind and sun are present nearly everywhere, and there are many optimal locations for wind farms and solar farms (both PV and thermal) in the US. Hydro: There are not many undeveloped, viable dam locations available in the US. Biomass: Few areas can support biomass-to-energy from agricultural and forestry residues at a reasonable cost. 33 Geothermal: There are many optimal, undeveloped geothermal plant locations. Ethanol: Ethanol production is feasible anywhere that corn can be grown, providing many optimal locations throughout the US. Potential This category evaluates how much energy could be produced by each technology in the US throughout one year, by The information is based off of the US Energy Information Administration s National Energy Modeling Program (except for ethanol 4

6 production). 15 The modeling program determines potential either based on modeling data, surveys, or published information, which typically includes capital costs, O&M costs, resource data, and capacity. 15 These factors vary by technology. The potential was converted into quads per year, and was given a weighting factor of one. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Potential Energy Production Scores 18 Technology Wind Solar - PV Solar - Thermal Hydro Biomass Geothermal Ethanol Potential (quads per year) Score (x 1) Ethanol: The potential for ethanol is based on a production rate that will not impact the price of corn or require corn subsidies. It is also based on a conversion rate of 16 billion gallons of ethanol producing 1.5 quads. 14 Process Inputs This category refers to process inputs that are necessary to keep each technology running, and how readily available these inputs are, and was given a weighting factor of one. The process inputs analysis is shown in Table 7. Technology Process Inputs Wind Wind Solar - PV Sun Table 7: Process Input Scores Solar - Thermal Hydro Biomass Geothermal Ethanol Sun, Agricultural Waste, Fresh Corn, Cool Water Municipal Solid Waste, Water, Heat Water Water Forest Residue, Water Score (x 1) Proposed Mix of Technologies Upon evaluation of the decision matrix, determined the mix of renewable energies utilized to generate 25% of the energy consumed in 2025, which is shown in Table 8. Hydropower, biomass, and ethanol production were not expanded, due to their low scores. The nearly perfect score of wind power resulted in a high-proposed usage rate, with solar making up most of the rest of the increase. The number, size, and locations of production sites will be discussed in the presentation. Table 8: Proposed Renewable Energy Usage for 2025 Based on Decision Matrix Scores Technology Wind Solar PV Solar Thermal Hydro Biomass Geothermal Ethanol Total Score Proposed 2025 Usage (quads) % of Total 44.4% 7.4% 16.7% 9.6% 8.9% 7.4% 5.6% % Increase 94.2% 97.5% 98.9% 0% 0% 80.0% 0% 5

7 References 1. Blau, J. (2011). Oversupply Causes Drop in Wind Turbine Prices, Renewable Energy World, last accessed 10 May 2011, 2. Brian Brown Engineering (2009). Feasibility Study for a Geothermal Plant, City of Kalamath Falls, Oregon, last accessed 16 May 2011, 3. Brower, M. (2002). Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies, Union of Concerned Scientists, last accessed 8 May 2011, ental-impacts-of.html. 4. CBC (2010). Energy Cost Calculator, The California Biomass Collaborative, last accessed 20 May 2011, 5. CEC (2010). Municipal Solid Waste Power Plants, The California Energy Commission, last accessed 16 May 2011, 6. CEC (2011). Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, The California Energy Comission, last accessed 8 May 2011, 7. Corkish, R. (1997). Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture? Photovoltaics Special Research Centre, last accessed 8 May 2011, 8. Davis, M. L., and Masten, S. J. (2009). Sustainable Energy, Mineral and Soil Resources. Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science, 2 nd ed., McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York, NY, Dickson, M. H., & Fanelli, M. (2004). What is Geothermal Energy? International Geothermal Association, last accessed 14 May 2011, energy.org/314,what_is_geothermal_energy.html. 10. EERE (2005). Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Biollion-Ton Annual Supply, US Department of Reference Page 1

8 Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy and US Department of Agriculture, last accessed 4 May 2011, EERE (2006). Geothermal Technology Program: Geothermal FAQs, US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, last accessed 10 May 2011, EERE (2010). Hydropower Resource Potential, US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, last accessed 20 May 2011, EERE (2011). Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, last accessed 8 May 2011, EIA (2007). Biofuels in the U.S. Transportation Sector, US Energy Information Administration, last accessed 20 May 2011, EIA (2009). The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview Renewable Fuels Module, US Energy Information Administration, last accessed 27 May 2011, EIA (2010). Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009, US Energy Information Administration, last accessed 20 May 2011, port.html. 17. EIA (2011). Solar Thermal, US Energy Information Administration, last accessed 8 May 2011, tml. 18. EIA (April 2011). Annual Energy Outlook 2011, Report DOE/EIA-0383(2011), US Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. 19. GAFO (2009). Geothermal Energy, Gafo Energy NZ, last accessed 17 May 2011, GEA (2009). Geothermal Basics, Geothermal Energy Association, last accessed Reference Page 2

9 16 May 2011, Greenecon (2007). Understanding the Cost of Solar Energy, Green Econometrics, last accessed 8 May 2011, energy_economics.html 22. Haq, Z. (2003). Biomass for Electricity Generation, US Energy Information Administration, last accessed 16 May 2011, Jcmiras (2008). Estimated Capital Cost of Power Generating Plant Technologies, Jcmiras.Net_02, last accessed 20 May 2011, Jennejohn, D., Blodgett, L., and Gawell, K. (2009). Geothermal Energy and Induced Seismicity, Geothermal Energy Association, last accessed 16 May 2011, Lxrichter (2011). REW Crowns 15 MW Ormat Jersey Valley as Geothermal Project of 2010, Think Geoenergy, last accessed 14 May 2011, Maung, T. A. (2008). Economics of Biomass Fuels for Electricity Production, Texas A&M University, last accessed 15 May 2011, Mills, A., Wiser, R., and Porter, K. (2009). The Cost of Transmission for Wind Energy: A Review of Transmission Planning Studies, Berkeley Lab Environmental Energy Technologies Division, last accessed 27 May 2011, Muckosy, P. (2010). True cost of wind turbine operation & maintenance, Renewable Energy World, last accessed 10 May 2011, NRDC (2011). Biomass Energy, National Resources Defense Council, last accessed 20 May 2011, Reference Page 3

10 30. NREL (2011). Energy Analysis, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, last accessed 8 May 2011, ODOE (2007). Biomass Energy: Cost of Production, Oregon Department of Energy, last accessed 25 May 2011, OEC (2011). Tidal Energy, Ocean Energy Council, last accessed 20 May 2011, PSU (2004). Clean Energy Opportunity Fuels Biomass, Penn State University Mid-Atlantic Clean Energy Application Center, last accessed 13 May 2011, Shepherd, P. (2000). Biomass Cofiring: A renewable Alternative for Utilities, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Clearinghouse, last accessed 14 May 2011, Sweet, B. (2010). U.S. Energy Budget Highlights, IEEE, last accessed 20 May 2011, USEPA (2010). Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, last accessed 8 May 2011, Vestas (2006). Life cycle assessment of electricity produced from onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V MW turbines, Vestas Wind Systems, Denmark. Image Credits Cover image created by Chase and Zachary Farrell, based on image from and composed of images from: corn_ethanol1.jpg, Reference Page 4