Energy Conversion Technologies

8/12/2019 Energy Conversion Technologies

1/84

1

Energy Conversion Technologies

1.0 IntroductionIn these notes, we describe the infrastructure that isavailable to be considered in the generation and

planning functions. We classify this information by

Energy conversion and storage

Technologies available now, and those likely to beavailable in the future.

Some qualifications:

We primarily consider only technologies whichfacilitate the conversion and storage of bulk (large)quantities of energy. There will be one exception tothis: small-scale distributed generation.

By energy conversion, we mean the conversion of

energy into some form of electric energy.By available now, we mean that the technology is

available now at a cost that is reasonably competitive.

2.0 Pulverized coal power plantsThere are three kinds of pulverized coal plants:

Subcritical

Supercritical

Ultra-supercriticalIn a PC plant, steam is admitted to the steam turbineat 1000 F and 2400 psi for subcritical and 3500 psi


2/84

2

for supercritical [1]. (Critical temperature andpressure for water are 705 F (374 C) and 3210psi(217.7 atm), respectively. When temperature exceeds

705 F, and pressure is above these values, water canexist only in the gaseous phase [2].) The pulverizedcoal is burned in a steam generator constructed ofmembrane waterwalls and tube bundles which absorbthe radiant heat of combustion producing steam thatis fed into a steam turbine generator [3]. The steamexpands in the turbine, and this expansion workdrives the turbine and generator to produceelectricity. The expanded steam is condensed towater in the condenser and then returned to the steamgenerator (or boiler).

Flue-gas from the combustion of coal in the steam

generator is passed through an electrostaticprecipitator to remove particulate. The flue-gas thenpasses through a flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) unit(or scrubber1), to remove SO2 from the flue-gas.After scrubbing, the flue-gas is exhausted through astack. The process is illustrated in Fig. 1.

1

Regarding the air pollution control devices for removing SO2 from coal-fired power plant s tacks, the twomost common are referred to as wet and dry. In wet processes, alkaline scrubbing liquor is utilized toremove the SO2 from the flue gas, and a wet slurry waste or by-product is produced. Wet scrubbertechnologies include limestone forced oxidation, limestone inhibited oxidation, lime, magnesium-enhancedlime, and seawater processes. These technologies are available to coal steam units that combust bituminouscoal with 2.5% or higher sulfur by weight. In dry processes, a dry sorbent is injected or sprayed to reactwith and neutralize the pollutant, forming a dry waste material. Dry s crubber technologies include limespray drying, duct sorbent injection, furnace sorbent injection, and circulating fluidized bed. Thesetechnologies are available to coal steam units that combust bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite coalwith less than 2.5% sulfur by weight. In addition, selective catalytic reduction is used to reduce NOX,


3/84

3

Steam

generatorCoal

Pile

Electrostatic

precipitator

Flue-gas de-

sulfurization

Stack

Steam

turbine

GeneratorElectricity

Condenser

Steam

1000F

Fig. 1A typical PC plant is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2: Pulverized Coal Power Plant

Sub critical systems have thermal efficiencies of 32-

35%. Super critical systems can have thermalefficiencies as high as 42%. Ultra-super-critical

plants have efficiencies above 42%, potentiallyreaching levels of 50-55%. Fig. 3 illustrates the effecton efficiency of steam temperature and pressure.


4/84

4

Fig. 3

The main point of this discussion is that there arethree different types of PC power plants, and theyhave different operating temperatures and pressures

and therefore different efficiencies (in the Rankinecycle, the amount of energy available for extraction

by the working fluid (water) depends on theoperating temperature and pressure of the fluid). Thetable below summarizes.

PC Plant type Temp Pressure EfficiencySubcritical 1000 F 2400 PSI 32-35%

Supercritical 1000 F 3500 PSI 38-42%Ultra-supercritical

1112 F 4350 PSI 42-55%

1 Bar=14.5 psi


5/84

5

Operating Characteristics of Three Types of PC Plants [4]

We may also observe from the below table thatinvestment costs for subcritical and supercritical areabout the same.

At the time of this writing, there is only one ultra-supercritical coal plant in the United States, a 600

MW plant built by AEP in Arkansas [5, 6], becomingoperational in 2012. Although it was announced thatthis plant cost $1.8B ($3000/kw) [7], there is littlecost data available for such plants.


6/84

6


7/84

7

Sub and Supercritical PC are the most mature coalburning technologies today, and we have moreexperience with them than any other power

generation technology. It is very reliable, easy tooperate and maintain, and can accommodate up to1,300 MW. Although fuel costs are very low, theseunits tend to have less fuel flexibility than CFB units(see below) in that they are more sensitive to fuelcharacteristics, slagging, and fouling.

3.0 Fluidized bed coal plantsIn fluidized bed combustion (FBC), solid fuels aresuspended on upward-blowing jets of air during thecombustion process. The result is a turbulent mixingof gas and solids. The tumbling action, like a

bubbling fluid, provides more effective chemical

reactions & heat transfer [8].

Fluidized-bed combustion evolved from efforts tofind a combustion process able to control SO2emissions without scrubbers. The technology burnsfuel at temperatures of 1400-1700 F, well below thethreshold where nitrogen oxides form (at

approximately 2500 F, the nitrogen and oxygenatoms in the combustion air combine to formnitrogen oxide pollutants). The mixing action of thefluidized bed brings the flue gases into contact with asulfur-absorbing chemical, such as limestone. More


8/84

8

than 95 percent of the SO2 in coal can be capturedinside the boiler by the sorbent [8].

There two broad classes of FBC:Atmospheric fluidized bed combustion (AFBC),

where the boilers operate at atmospheric pressure.

Pressurized fluidized bed combustion (PFBC),where the boilers operate at elevated pressures and

produce a high-pressure gas stream at temperaturesthat can drive a gas turbine. Steam generated fromthe heat in the fluidized bed is sent to a steam turbine,creating a highly efficient combined cycle system.

The AFBC was the earliest fluidized-bed plants builtand used bubbling-bed technology, Fig. 4 [9].Here, a stationary fluidized bed in the boiler uses low

air velocities to fluidize the material and a heatexchanger immersed in the bed to generate steam.

Fig. 4


9/84

9

PFBCs have used both bubbling bed and circulatingbeds, Fig. 4. In these plants, Fig. 5a [3], combustionair is introduced through the bottom of the bed

material normally consisting of fuel, limestone, andash. Heat generated from burning fuel producessteam which is fed into a steam turbine generator [3].

Fig. 5a: Circulating fluidized bed

This circulating fluidized bed (CFB) plant has abilityto burn a wide variety of fuels and thus has muchgreater fuel diversity than PC. It is reliable and easyto operate and maintain because low combustiontemperatures tend to minimize slagging and foulingtendencies. Yet, to date, no units larger than 300 MWhave been built, their operations and maintenancecosts are slightly higher than for PC units, and theyare less suited for numerous startups and cycling thanPC units. In addition, they are typically a little lessefficient than PC plants.


10/84

10

A related technology is the Advanced PressurizedFluidized Bed Combustion Combined Cycle(APFBC) plant [10], which combines the benefits of

FBC and those of combined cycle units. APFBC usesa circulating pressurized fluidized bed combustor(PFBC) with a fluid bed heat exchanger to develophot vitiated air for the gas turbines topping

combustor and steam for the steam bottoming cycle,and a carbonizer to produce hot fuel gas for the gasturbines topping combustor. This provides highcombined cycle energy efficiency levels on coal.Figure 5b illustrates a PFBC [11].

Fig. 5b


11/84

11

Table 1 provides emissions removal rates and otherdata for several PFBC plants around the world [11].

Table 1PLANT

Location Output

MWeCoal Type

Commission

Date

SO2emission

% removal

NOx emission

mg/MJ

Vartan Sweden 135 Bituminous 1990 94-99 10-50

Tidd Ohio 70 Bituminous 1991 91-93 75-90

EscatronSpain

79high sulfur

black lignite

199090 75-90

Wakamatsu Japan 71 Bituminous 1994 90-95 15-40

Tomato Japan 85 Coal 1995

TreboviceCzechRepublic 70 Hard coal

1996

Karita Japan 350 Hard coal 1999

Osaki Japan 250 1999

Cottbus Germany 71 Brown coal 1999

Fig. 6a compares LCOE for coal-fired power plants[11] in cents/kWhr.

Fig. 6a


12/84

12

4.0 CO2Capture and Sequestration for coalAny coal-fired generation technology will requireCO2 capture and sequestration in order to

significantly reduce its CO2emissions.

There are two ways to perform CO2capture for PC orfor CFB plants: post-combustion capture and oxygen

based combustion. A third way is called pre-combustion and involves IGCC, to be discussed inSection 7 below. The three ways are illustrated inFig. 6b [12].

Fig. 6b [12]Post-combustion refers to capturing CO2 from theflue (exhaust) gases after a fuel has been combustedin air. It comprises an absorber where CO2 iscaptured using a chemical solvent like an amine and aregenerator where the captured CO2 is released fromthe solvent. Amines are ammonia derivatives and


13/84

13

include aqueous monoethanolamine (MEA),diglycolamine (DGA), diethanolamine (DEA),diisopropanolamine (DIPA) and

methyldiethanolamine (MDEA).

In oxycombustion (or O2-fired combustion), an air-separation unit (ASU) serves to eliminate nitrogen(N2) from the air to produce the pure oxygen (O2).The hydrocarbon fuel is combusted with the O2,rather than air, to produce an exhaust mixture that ismostly CO2, but with some water vapor [13]. The

products of combustion are thus only CO2and watervapor. This exhaust mixture has some impurities (O2and N2) which are removed in a purification stage byreducing its temperature to a level at which the CO2condenses and the impurities do not. The condensed

CO=2= effluent is compressed at high pressure(greater than 2000 psia) and is piped from the plant tobe sequestered in geologic formations such asdepleted oil and gas reservoirs [13].

This oxygen-fired combustion process eliminates theneed for the CO2 removal/separation process and,

despite the expense and power consumption of airseparation, reduces the cost of CO2capture [13].

In Fig. 7, the levelized cost of energy (including fixedcosts, O&M, and fuel costs) are compared for an air-


14/84

14

fired plant with no capture, a plant with post-combustion capture, an IGCC with pre-combustioncapture, and one with oxycombustion [13].

Fig. 7

5.0 Simple Cycle Combustion turbinesSimple cycle combustion turbines (CTs), Fig. 8, [3]generate power by compressing and heating ambient

air and then expanding those hot gases through aturbine which turns an electric generator. They arealso referred to as a gas turbineand identical to jetengines in theory of operation. CTs, a maturetechnology, have low capital cost, short design andinstallation schedules, rapid startup times, and highreliability. On the other hand, they have highoperations and maintenance costs when compared tocombined cycle units and are therefore only used for

peaking operation. Sizes are typically less than 300MW.


15/84

15

Fig. 8: CT Power Plant

Whereas steam-fired power plants operate on theRankine thermodynamic cycle, CTs operate on theBrayton cycle. These cycles are illustrated in Fig. 9a[14]. Note that in the Rankine cycle, the working

fluid (water) continuously changes from liquid togaseous states, whereas in the Brayton cycle, theworking fluid is always in the gaseous state.


16/84

16

Rankine Cycle Brayton Cycle

1-2: Liquid water pumped to a higher

pressure adiabatically (constant heat)

2-3: Heat is added by boiling the water

(constant pressure)

3-4: High pressure steam drives the

turbine adiabatically (constant heat)

4-1: Steam is condensed to liquid water

(constant temp, constant pressure)

1-2: Air is compressed adiabatically

(constant heat)

2-3: Heat is added by burning fuel

(constant pressure)

3-4: High pressure air drives a turbine

(constant heat)

4-1: Air exhausted from the turbine is

cooled to state 1 (constant pressure)

Fig. 9aIt should be recognized that gas turbines typicallyoperate on an open cycle, as illustrated in the left-hand-side of Fig. 9b, but under so-called air-standardassumptions, they are modeled thermodynamically asshown on the right-hand-side of Fig. 9b, where the

combustion process is replaced by a heat-exchangeprocess [15].

Fig. 9b


17/84

17

6.0 Natural Gas Combined Cycle power plantsCombined cycle combustion turbines [3], Fig. 10,

generate power by compressing and heating ambientair and then expanding those hot gases through aturbine which turns an electric generator. In addition,heat from the hot gases of combustion is captured ina heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) producingsteam which is passed through a steam turbinegenerator. NGCC units have low emissions andsignificantly higher efficiency than CTs. But theircapital cost is higher than CTs. Compared to standard

baseload plants, they are subject to the volatility ofnatural gas prices. Their O&M costs are higher thanPC plants.

Fig. 10: NGCC Power Plant


18/84

18

Combined cycle plants are so named because theycombine the Rankine & Brayton cycles, as shown inFig. 11, where we see what was previously wasted

heat from the Brayton cycle (the gas turbine) is nowbeing used to produce steam in a Rankine cycle.

Rankine Cycle

Brayton Cycle

Fig. 11The following information was developed from[Error! Bookmark not defined., 16, 17, 18]. The

below figure shows recent US growth in combinedcycle power plants [19].


19/84

19

Fig. x

Combined cycle units utilize both gas turbines (basedon the Brayton cycle) and steam turbines (based on

the Rankine cycle). Gas turbines are very similar tojet engines where fuel (can be either liquid or gas)mixed with compressed air is ignited. Thecombustion increases the temperature and volume ofthe gas flow, which when directed through a valve-controlled nozzle over turbine blades, spins theturbine which drives a synchronous generator. On the

other hand, steam turbines utilize a fuel (coal, naturalgas, petroleum, or uranium) to create heat which,when applied to a boiler, transforms water into high

pressure superheated (above the temperature ofboiling water) steam. The steam is directed through a


20/84

20

valve-controlled nozzle over turbine blades, whichspins the turbine to drive a synchronous generator.

A combined cycle power plant combines gas turbine(also called combustion turbine) generator(s) withturbine exhaust waste heat boiler(s) (also called heatrecovery steam generators or HRSG) and steamturbine generator(s) for the production of electric

power. The waste heat from the combustionturbine(s) is fed into the boiler(s) and steam from the

boiler(s) is used to run steam turbine(s). Both thecombustion turbine(s) and the steam turbine(s)

produce electrical energy. Generally, the combustionturbine(s) can be operated with or without the

boiler(s).

A combustion turbine is also referred to as a simplecycle gas turbine generator. They are relativelyinefficient with net heat rates at full load of some

plants at 15 MBtu/MWhr, as compared to the 9.0 to10.5 MBtu/MWhr heat rates typical of a large fossilfuel fired utility generating station. This fact,combined with what can be high natural gas prices,

make the gas turbine expensive. Yet, they can rampup and down very quickly, so as a result, combustionturbines have mainly been used only for peaking orstandby service.


21/84

21

The gas turbine exhausts relatively large quantities ofgases at temperatures over 900 F. In combined cycleoperation, then, the exhaust gases from each gas

turbine will be ducted to a waste heat boiler. The heatin these gases, ordinarily exhausted to theatmosphere, generates high pressure superheatedsteam. This steam will be piped to a steam turbinegenerator. The resulting combined cycle heat rate isin the 7.0 to 9.5 MBtu/MWhr range, significantly lessthan a simple cycle gas turbine generator.

In addition to the good heat rates, combined cycleunits have flexibility to utilize different fuels (naturalgas, heavy fuel oil, low Btu gas, coal-derived gas)[20]. (In fact, as discussed in Section 7, there aresome advanced technologies under development right

now, including the integrated gasification combinedcycle (IGCC) plant, which makes it possible to runcombined cycle on solid fuel (e.g., coal or biomass)[21]).

The flexibility of combined cycle plants, togetherwith the fast ramp rates of the combustion turbines

and relatively low heat rates, has made the combinedcycle unit the unit of choice for a large percentage ofrecent new power plant installations. The potentialfor increased gas supply and lowered gas prices hasfurther stimulated this tendency.


22/84

22

Fig. 32 shows the simplest kind of combined cyclearrangement, where there is one combustion turbine

and one HRSG driving a steam turbine.

Chiller/Cooler

Inlet Air

Gas Supply

Duct firing

HRSG

Condenser

CTG STG

Fig. 32: A 1 1 configuration

An additional level of complexity would have twocombustion turbines (CT A and B) and their HRSGs

driving one steam turbine generator (STG), as shownin Fig. 33.


23/84

23

Chiller/Cooler

Inlet Air

Gas Supply

Duct firing

HRSG

Chiller/Cooler

Inlet Air

Gas Supply

Duct firing

HRSG

Condenser

CTG

CTG STG

Fig. 33: a 2 1 configurationIn such a design, the following six combinations are

possible. CT A alone CT B alone CT A and CT B together CT A and STG CT B and STG CT A and B and STGThe modes with the STG are more efficient than themodes without the STG (since the STG utilizes CTexhaust heat that is otherwise wasted), with the last

mode listed being the most efficient.


24/84

24

7.0 Integrated gasification combined cycle, IGCCThe first two operational IGCC plants in the US were

the Polk Station Plant in Tampa and the WabashRiver Plant in Indiana [22]. Figure 12 shows theWabash River, Indiana IGCC.

Fig. 12

The Ratcliffe-Kemper plant, currently under

construction by Mississippi Power (a subsidiary ofSouthern Company), is a 582 MW IGCC plant, to becompleted in 2014 [23, 24]. Figs. 13a [25] and 13b[26] illustrate an IGCC unit.


25/84

25

Fig. 13a

Fig. 13b


26/84

26

In IGCC,

Coal is fed into a high-temperature pressurizedcontainer called a gasifier, along with steam and a

limited amount of oxygen.The combination of heat, pressure, and steam

breaks down the coal and creates chemical reactionsthat produce synthesis gas (syngas) comprised of H2and CO.

The gas is cooled and CO2 are captured viachemical absorption. This is an advantage in that this

pre-combustion process is very inexpensive incomparison to the post-combustion processes used in

pulverized coal plants.

The syngas can be used to drive a combustion turbinein a combined cycle process, and/or it can be further

processed to separate the hydrogen for use as anenergy source for stationary or mobile applications.

Gasification systems can be coupled with fuel cellsystems for future applications. Fuel cells converthydrogen gas to electricity (and heat) using anelectro-chemical process. There are very little air

emissions and the primary exhaust is water vapor. Ifthe costs of fuel cells and biomass gasifiers decrease,these systems are expected to proliferate.


27/84

27

Dont confuse oxy-combustion with IGCC:

In oxy-combustion, the coal itself is stillcombusted, whereas in IGCC, the coal is converted

to syngas before it is combusted. In oxy-combustion, the actual CO2 capture is

performed post-combustion (but is not namedpost-combustionto allow use of that term for the

process whereby solvents (amines) absorb the CO2from the flue-gas); the oxy-combustion exhaust ismostly CO2 so that CO2 capture is a purificationstage. In contrast, IGCC is a process that convertscoal to gas. That in itself significantly decreasesSO2, NOx, and Hg, but it does not decrease theCO2. CO2capture from IGCC is, however, a verymature technology based on its use in the chemicalindustry. Here, a water-shift-reaction is used

whereby CO and water react to form CO2 and H2.

There are three kinds of oxygen gasifiers: movingbed gasifiers; fluidized bed gasifiers; and entrainedbed gasifiers. EPRI has found that single stageentrained gasifiers were found to have the bestfeatures. One of those features is that they are best for

producing syngas for Fischer-Tropsch synthesis.

The Fischer-Tropsch process is a reaction wheresyngas is converted into liquid hydrocarbons. The

principal purpose of this process is to produce a


28/84

28

synthetic petroleum substitute for use as syntheticlubrication oil or as synthetic fuel (synfuel). Thissynfuel runs trucks, cars, and some aircraft engines.

There is some indication that IGCCs comparefavorably with other coal-fired generationtechnologies, as indicated in Table 2. However, thisis relatively old information, and more currentinformation may indicate otherwise.

Table 2: Comparison of IGCC with CFB and PC


29/84


30/84


31/84

31

8.0 Nuclear power plantsNew nuclear power capacity has been dormant since thelast nuclear power plant to come on-line (1996, Watts Bar,

Tennessee). Fig. 13d illustrates the situation.Comatose Period

Fig. 13d: Number of US Operating Reactors 73-04

If we assume a 50 year life on these plants, and noting that

over half the plants were operating by 1978, almost all by1990, we will lose half of this resource by 2028 and all of itby 2038, if additional nuclear plants are not built.

We will see that things could be changing, but before that,we will review the technology itself.

As indicated in Fig. 14, there are 2 kinds of nuclearpower plants in the United States: boiling waterreactors (BWR) & pressurized water reactors (PWR).Both are referred to as light-water reactors, becausethey use ordinary water as the moderator between


32/84

32

fuel rods. A moderator is necessary to slow downneutrons released from fission to a speed or energylevel to cause further fission & sustain the reaction.

Steam

Pressurized Water Reactor Boiling Water Reactor

Fig. 14In the PWR, light water is heated by the nuclear fuel,

but is kept under pressure in the pressure vessel, so itwill not boil. The water inside the pressure vessel is

piped through separate tubing to a steam generator.The steam generator acts like a heat exchanger. Thereis a second supply of water inside the steamgenerator. Heated by the water from the pressurevessel, it boils to produce steam for the turbine. PWRreactor sizes range from 600 to 1,200 MW andaccount for 57% of the worlds power reactors. Mostof the US nuclear plants, such as Fig. 15a, are PWR.


33/84


34/84

34

A BWR is a simpler design than a PWR, but itexposes steam from the containment structure to theexternal world. In contrast, the PWR maintains

primary water isolated in the containment structureand is therefore considered to be a safer design.

A summary of different types of nuclear power plantsis given in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Nuclear power plants in commercial operation

Reactor typeMainCountries

Number GWe Fuel Coolant Moderator

Pressurised Water

Reactor (PWR)

US, France,

Japan, Russia264 250.5

enriched

UO2water water

Boiling Water Reactor

(BWR)

US, Japan,Sweden

94 86.4enriched

UO2water water

Pressurised Heavy

Water Reactor

'CANDU' (PHWR)

Canada 43 23.6naturalUO2

heavywater

heavywater

Gas-cooled Reactor

(AGR & Magnox)UK 18 10.8

natural U

(metal),enriched

UO2

CO2 graphite

Light Water Graphite

Reactor (RBMK)Russia 12 12.3

enrichedUO2

water graphite

Fast Neutron Reactor

(FBR)

Japan, France,

Russia4 1.0

PuO2and

UO2

liquid

sodiumnone

Other Russia 4 0.05enriched

UO2water graphite

TOTAL 439 384.6

GWe = capacity in thousands of megawatts (gross)


35/84

35

Both BWRs and PWRs have high capital costs and

long lead time to construct plants. The uranium fuelmust be enriched to run in these reactors,

significantly adding to fuel costs. The enrichmentprocess increases the percentage of U-235concentrations to above 4% (natural deposits ofuranium contain 99.3% U-238, which is notfissionable). There are about 100 research-gradereactors in the world which use highly-enriched(90%) uranium which is a weapons-grade level andthus causes significant concern of theft.

They produce no emissions but do produce 2 kinds ofnuclear waste: Low level and high level waste. Bothmust be stored in underground facilities until fullydiminished.

Low-level waste has a 30-year cool down period; itincludes radioactively contaminated protectiveclothing, tools, filters, rags, medical tubes, andmany other items. There are three low-level wastesites in the US: South Carolina, Utah, andWashington State.

High-level waste has a 100-1000+ year cool downperiod; this is used nuclear reactor fuel. It can existin two forms: spent reactor fuel when it is acceptedfor disposal or waste materials remaining afterspent fuel is reprocessed. Until a permanentdisposal repository for spent nuclear fuel is built,


36/84

36

licensees must safely store this fuel at theirreactors.o1982: Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) instructed

DOE to investigate creation of a geologic repositoryfor nuclear waste.o1987: Congress amended NWPC and directed DOE to

study only Yucca Mountain.o2002: President Bush signed House Resolution 87,

allowing DOE to take the next step in using Yucca Mt.oOn June 3, 2008, the DOE submitted a license

application to the NRC, seeking authorization toconstruct a deep geologic repository for disposal ofhigh-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada.oObama was inaugurated January 20, 2009.oOn January 29, 2010, DOE Secretary Chu announced

a 15-member panel of experts to chart new paths tomanage highly radioactive nuclear waste.

oOn April 6, 2010, Steven Chu said, We are takingsteps to end [Yucca Mountain] because we see nopoint in it. Its spending a lot of money. Its veryimportant that we not linger around this decision. Its

been made, and we want to go forward and move intothe future.

oOn April 7, 2010, the NRC said that it will not act onthe DOEs motion to withdraw its application toconstruct the nuclear materials repository at YuccaMountain until the court system rules on relatedlawsuits, and it will continue its work on theapplication review.


37/84


38/84

38

departures. The former include the Advanced BoilingWater Reactor, a few of which are now operatingwith others under construction. The best-known

radical new design is the Pebble Bed ModularReactor, using helium as coolant, at very hightemperature, to drive a turbine directly.

Generation IV designs are still on the drawing boardand will not be operational after 2020. They will tendto have closed fuel cycles and burn the long-livedactinides now forming part of spent fuel, so thatfission products are the only high-level waste. Manywill be fast neutron reactors.

Table 5 [30] summarizes advanced reactors presentlybeing marketed.

Table 5

Country anddeveloper

ReactorSizeMWe

Design ProgressMain Features(improved safety in all)

US-Japan

(GE-Hitachi,

Toshiba)

ABWR 1300

Commercial operation in Japan

since 1996-7. In US: NRCcertified 1997, FOAKE.

Evolutionary design. More efficient, less waste. Simplified construction (48

months) and operation.

USA(Westinghouse)

AP-600

AP-1000(PWR)

6001100

AP-600: NRC certified 1999,

FOAKE. AP-1000 NRCcertified 05.

Simplified construction andoperation.

3 years to build. 60-year plant life.

France-Germany

(Areva NP)

EPRUS-EPR

(PWR)

1600

Future French standard.

French design approval.Being built in Finland.US version developed.

Evolutionary design. High fuel efficiency. Low cost electricity.


39/84

39

Country and

developerReactor

Size

MWeDesign Progress

Main Features

(improved safety in all)

USA

(GE)ESBWR 1550

Developed from ABWR,under certification in USA

Evolutionary design. Short construction time.

Japan

(utilities,

Mitsubishi)

APWR

US-APWREU-APWR

153017001700

Basic design in progress,planned for TsurugaUS design certification

application 2008.

Hybrid safety features. Simplified Construction and

operation.

South Korea

(KHNP, derived

from Wstnghouse)

APR-1400(PWR)

1450Design certification 03, Firstunits expected operational 12.

Evolutionary design. Increased reliability. Simplified construction

Germany(Areva NP)

SWR-

1000(BWR)

1200Under development,pre-certification in USA

Innovative design. High fuel efficiency.

Russia

(Gidropress)

VVER-1200(PWR)

1200Replacement for Leningrad andNovovoronezh plants

High fuel efficiency.

Russia

(Gidropress)

V-392

(PWR)950-1000

Two being built in India,

Bid for China in 2005.

Evolutionary design. 60-year plant life.

Canada (AECL)

CANDU-6

CANDU-9

750

925+

Enhanced model

Licensing approval 1997

Evolutionary design. Flexible fuel requirements. C-9: Single stand-alone unit.

Canada (AECL) ACR7001080

undergoing certification inCanada

Evolutionary design. Light water cooling. Low-enriched fuel.

South Africa

(Eskom,

Westinghouse)

PBMR170(module)

prototype due to start building(Chinese 200 MWe counterpartunder const.)

Modular plant, low cost. High fuel efficiency. Direct cycle gas turbine.

USA-Russia et al

(General Atomics

- OKBM)

GT-MHR285(module)

Under development in Russiaby multinational joint venture

Modular plant, low cost. High fuel efficiency. Direct cycle gas turbine.


40/84

40

Because the Bush Administration was very pro-nuclear,and because of the high natural gas prices and concern overgreenhouse gas, legislation was passed in 2005 called the

2005 Federal Energy Legislation. This legislation [31]provided the following:

oLoan guarantees: of 80% of estimatedproject cost for first 6 plants to obtainlicenses. Fed govt agrees to repay lenders if

borrowers default.oStandby Support: insurance to counter risk

of delays in new plant construction due tolitigation or NRC approval:

Up to $500 million to each of first twoplants 1&2 (100% of delay costs)

Up to $250 million for plants 3-6oProduction credits: capped at 1.8/kWhr for

first 8 years, applied to up to 6000 MW

capacity operable before 1/1/21.oFunding support: $1.18 billion for nuclear

research, development, demonstration, andcommercial application activities 07-09.

In addition, there were other pro-nuclear developments:1.The DOE NP 2010 Program was enacted that provides

50% sharing of cost of engineering on 2 new designs.2.Streamlined NRC licensing process which combines

construction and operating licensing processes.3.Availability of new designs as indicated in Table 5. More

specifically, there are currently four certified reactordesigns that can be referenced in an NRC application for

Very generousfor firstmovers!!!!


41/84


42/84

42

Fig. 13f: Projected nuclear plants as of 1/09

Fig. 13f: Projected nuclear plants as of 7/10


43/84

43

Some of these nuclear plants are described in moredetail in Table 6.

Table 6: COL Applications Received as of 1/4/10Proposed New Reactor(s) Design Applicant

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant U.S. EPR PPL Bell Bend, LLC

Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3

and 4

AP1000 Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

Callaway Plant, Unit 2 U.S. EPR AmerenUE

Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3 U.S. EPR Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC and

UniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC

Comanche Peak, Units 3 and 4 US-APWR Luminant Generation Company, LLC

(Luminant)Fermi, Unit 3 ESBWR Detroit Edison Company

Grand Gulf, Unit 3 ESBWR Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI)

Levy County, Units 1 and 2 AP1000 Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF)

Nine Mile Point, Unit 3 U.S. EPR Nine Mile Point 3 Nuclear Project, LLC andUniStar Nuclear Operating Services, LLC

(UniStar)

North Anna, Unit 3 ESBWR Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion)

River Bend Station, Unit 3 ESBWR Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI)

Shearon Harris, Units 2 and 3 AP1000 Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC)

South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4 ABWR South Texas Project Nuclear OperatingCompany (STPNOC)

Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 AP1000 Florida Power and Light Company (FPL)

Victoria County Station, Units 1 and2

ESBWR Exelon Nuclear Texas Holdings, LLC(Exelon)

Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3 AP1000 South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G)

Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 AP1000 Southern Nuclear Operating Company(SNC)

William States Lee III, Units 1 and 2 AP1000 Duke Energy

Four of these have applied for Early-Site Permits4, asindicated in Table 7a.

4By issuing an early site permit (ESP), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approves one ormore sites for a nuclear power facility, independent of an application for a construction permit or combinedlicens e. An ESP is valid for 10 to 20 years from the date of issuance, and can be renewed for an additional10 to 20 years.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bell-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bell-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/callaway.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/callaway.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/fermi.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/fermi.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/harris.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/harris.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/abwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/abwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/summer.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/summer.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/summer.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/abwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/harris.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/fermi.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/callaway.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bell-bend.html


44/84

44

Table 7a (early-site permits as of 2010)Site Applicant

Clinton ESP Site Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Grand Gulf ESP Site System Energy Resources Inc.

North Anna ESP Site Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

Vogtle ESP Site Southern Nuclear Operating Company

But there have been and are impediments:

Financing: They need funds 10-12 years before the firstMW is sold from these units, and the federal assistancedoes not provide assistance to lenders with respect to thisissue.

Cost and excess cost: The capital cost is high ($5-7billion). Given the first of a kind technologies, what ifcostsgreatlyexceed estimates?

Human resources for nuclear engineering and techniciansare almost nonexistent right now.

The process of design certification and construction-operation licensing (COL) should be done sequentially,

however, it is being done in parallel, causing significantconcern. Reference [32] contains an excellent discussionof this issue which indicates:

The AP1000 was pronounced "certified" by the NRC in January 2006,

making it the first of the new third-generation reactors. Since that initialcertification, a spokesman for these groups noted that Westinghouse has

submitted 17 updates to the AP1000 certified design.

This has lead to the following kind of statements[32]It is clearly unlawful for the NRC to review license applications prior togenuine certification of the AP1000 design," explained Lou Zeller of the

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, which is leading the federal

intervention against Duke Energys proposed Lee 1 and 2 reactors in SouthCarolina and TVAs Bellefonte project in Alabama. "The industry jumped

the gun before the blueprints were finished, but they cannot redirect their

problem onto interveners and NRC staffers trying to review these ever-changing, complex documents."
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/clinton.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/clinton.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/esp/clinton.html


45/84

45

The below Table 7b indicates the current state ofcombined license applications [33]. Only 2 have beenissued, 9 are under review, and the other 7 have been

suspended.Table 7b: Status of COL applications

Proposed New Reactor(s) Design Applicant Status

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant U.S. EPR PPL Bell Bend, LLC Under

Review

Bellefonte Nuclear Station, Units 3

and 4

AP1000 Tennessee Valley

Authority (TVA)

Suspended

Callaway Plant, Unit 2 U.S. EPR AmerenUE Suspended

Calvert Cliffs, Unit 3 U.S. EPR Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear

Project, LLC and UniStar

Nuclear Operating

Services, LLC

Under

Review

Comanche Peak, Units 3 and 4 US-APWR Luminant Generation

Company, LLC

(Luminant)

Under

Review

Fermi, Unit 3 ESBWR Detroit Edison Company Under

Review

Grand Gulf, Unit 3 ESBWR Entergy Operations, Inc.

(EOI)

Suspended

Levy County, Units 1 and 2 AP1000 Progress Energy Florida,

Inc. (PEF)

Under

Review

Nine Mile Point, Unit 3 U.S. EPR Nine Mile Point 3 Nuclear

Project, LLC and UniStar

Nuclear Operating

Services, LLC (UniStar)

Suspended
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bell-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/callaway.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/callaway.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/fermi.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/fermi.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/nine-mile-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/levy.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/grand-gulf.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/fermi.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/comanche-peak.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/callaway.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bellefonte.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/epr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/bell-bend.html


46/84

46

North Anna, Unit 3 US-APWR Dominion Virginia Power

(Dominion)

Under

Review

River Bend Station, Unit 3 ESBWR Entergy Operations, Inc.

(EOI)

Suspended

Shearon Harris, Units 2 and 3 AP1000 Progress Energy

Carolinas, Inc. (PEC)

Suspended

South Texas Project, Units 3 and 4 ABWR South Texas Project

Nuclear Operating

Company (STPNOC)

Under

Review

Turkey Point, Units 6 and 7 AP1000 Florida Power and Light

Company (FPL)

Under

Review

Victoria County Station, Units 1

and 2

ESBWR Exelon Nuclear Texas

Holdings, LLC (Exelon)

Suspended

Virgil C. Summer, Units 2 and 3 AP1000 South Carolina Electric &

Gas (SCE&G)

Issued

Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 AP1000 Southern Nuclear

Operating Company

(SNC)

Issued

William States Lee III, Units 1 and

2

AP1000 Duke Energy Under

Review

9.0 Hydroelectric plantsThe US has already developed most hydroelectric

facilities. It is possible to uprate some existingfacilities, and this may well be done. Nonetheless,most studies are consistent in assuming thathydroelectric should not be considered as asignificant player in supplying future additional US
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/harris.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/harris.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/abwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/abwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/summer.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/summer.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/lee.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/summer.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/victoria.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/turkey-point.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/abwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/south-texas-project.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/harris.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/esbwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/river-bend.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/apwr.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/north-anna.html


47/84

47

electric energy needs. For example, a recent DOEstudy [34] indicates that additional hydroelectriccapacity should not exceed 4.3 GW. An exception to

this would be pumped storage.

10.0Wind plantsThere is extreme interest in growing wind energythroughout the nation, particularly where wind speeds makeit attractive to do so.

However, wind is highly variable, imposing additionaluncertainty on load variation that must be covered byincreased reserves. But there appear to be solutions to this

problem, including deployment of various kinds of storagecoupled with fast response machines. If this is the case, theamount of wind that can be built in the US far exceeds thetransmission capacity for moving it. This fact hasmotivated the Midwest ISO to propose building a newtransmission overlay to move Midwest wind energy to theeast coast, as illustrated in Fig. 15b.


48/84

48

Fig. 15b: Proposed transmission overlay

Likewise, the American Electric Power (AEP) Companywas recently cited in the recent DOE wind study [35] as

authors of a preliminary proposal for a national 765 kVoverlay, as illustrated in Fig. 15c.


49/84


50/84

50

growing at an amazing rate. In 2006, there was 1 GWof wind capacity; that doubled by 2008! There areseveral reasons for this, but one of them is that wind

is a very buildable electric energy resource, and insome states, it is the only buildable electric energyresource, due to the fact that it requires very little inthe way of land, permitting, and time.

It can be built quickly, within 1-3 years of initiation

It is economically competitive with the followingdata representing typical wind power costs [36]:oPrivate ownership, project financing: 4.95

cents/kWh including PTC, 6.56 cents/kWhwithout.

oIOU ownership, corporate financing: 3.53cents/kWh including PTC, 5.9 cents/kWh without.

oPublic utility ownership, internal financing: 2.88cents/kWh including REPI, 4.35 cents/kWhwithout.

oPublic utility ownership, project financing: 3.43cents/kWh including REPI, 4.89 cents/kWhwithout.

In the above, PTC is the production tax credit.Because public utilities do not pay tax, the

Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) wasdeveloped as a payment to public utilities tocompensate for the fact that since they are notsubject to federal taxes, they cannot qualify for thePTC. However, since REPI is not a tax deduction,


51/84

51

money must be appropriated for it each year byCongress, and thus it is viewed by the financialcommunity as subject to considerable risk.

Of course, wind does have its problems, including:

Its variability and associated cost of increasedreserves

Lack of adequate transmission to bring it fromareas of high wind potential (e.g., North Dakota) toareas of high load.

There is evidence of solutions to these two problems.

Variability issues may become less significant aswind penetration levels grow, and to the extent thatthese issues remain, solutions may be on the horizon

in the form of improved short-term forecastingmethods for wind, increased use of fast-rampinggeneration, and innovative ways to couple wind withstorage mechanisms.

In regards to transmission, there is an organizationdedicated to addressing this issue, called Wind on

the Wires, [37], with a mission ofproviding wind energy with fair access to theelectric transmission system that delivers powerto market. This includes both better use of


52/84

52

existing transmission and getting moretransmission constructed.

They list technical issues as one of their three

primary focus areas, describing it this wayWe work with utilities, the MidwestIndependent System Operator (a regionaltransmission grid operator:

www.midwestiso.org), and other stakeholders oncomprehensive, integrated, forward-lookingtransmission planning.

Another indication of activity regarding addressinginterstate transmission needs was a recentannouncement [38] that governors from Iowa,Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, andWisconsin are banding together to develop

transmission plans to submit to the Midwest ISOwhich would improve the interstate transmissionsystem, with comments:

The time is right for planning and coordinationbetween these states in the Midwest ISO, saidMinnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. As states in theregion increase their use of wind energy, planning on

how best to locate wind farms and other renewablesources and build the necessary transmissioninfrastructure to support them is crucial.

This effort complements and meshes very wellwith ongoing initiatives at MISO and the Midwest


53/84

53

Governors Association," added South Dakota Gov.Mike Rounds, MGA5chairman.A final comment about transmission: The need is

driven by the fact that most of the richest windregions (Midwest) are remote from load centers (onthe coast). This statement is, however, based on theassumption that we are considering only land-basedwind energy systems. Offshore wind generation isrealizable as a future resource, and it would largelysolve the problem associated with interstatetransmission. We describe offshore windtechnologies

11.0 BiomassThe term biomass includes use of organic matter e.g.,wood residues (saw dust, wood chips, wood waste

such as pallets and crates), agricultural waste (cornstovers and rice hulls), energy crops (hybrid poplar,switchgrass, and willow), and municipal waste(garbage) to produce

Biofuels: ethanol, methanol, methane, hydrogen,biodiesel or

Biopower: converting organic matter to electricity.

Today, most attention is on biofuels (e.g., the USDOEs Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energywebpages are almost entirely devoted to biofuels).

5Midwest Governors Association


54/84

54

Mainly as a result of the 1978 PURPA legislation,biopower comprises the largest single non-hydroelectric renewable resource in the US, with 11 GW of

installed capacity [39] (remember, wind is presentlyat 2 GW). Of these 11 GW, about 7.5 GW utilizeforest product or agricultural residues, 3.0 GW ismunicipal solid waste (MSW), and 0.75 GW islandfill gas.

There are three main ways to produce biopower [40]:1.Direct-fired systems: This uses conventional

steam-cycle technology where the biomass fuel isburned in a boiler to produce high-pressure steamwhich in turn drives a steam turbine. Most of thesesystems are relatively small (0-50MW) and unableto economically justify efficiency-improving

technologies. Thus, overall plant efficiencies tendto be in the 20-30% range.2.Cofiring: Here, biomass is substituted for a portion

of coal in an existing power plant furnace. It is themost economic near-term option for introducingnew biomass power generation. Because much ofthe existing power plant equipment can be used

without major modifications, cofiring is far lessexpensive than building a new BioPower plant.Compared to the coal it replaces, biomass reducesSO2 and NOx. Efficiencies are about the same as aconventional pulverized coal plant (33-37% range).


55/84

55

3.Slow pyrolysis: This is a century-old technologywhereby biomass is heated so that the solid

biomass breaks down to form a flammable gas. The

heating process is called pyrolysis, which is thethermal decomposition of biomass fuels in theabsence of oxygen [41]. The biogas, also called

producer gas, is a mixture of combustible and non-combustible gases, as illustrated in Fig. 16 [42].The quantity of each gas constituent depends uponthe type of fuel and operating condition. Thesegases can be filtered and then used in internal-combustion engines or combined-cycle plants.

Fig. 16It is of interest that the City of Ames, Iowa has a co-firing facility called the Arnold O. Chantland

Resource Recovery Plant (RRP). Built in 1975, theRRP separates burnable and non-burnable garbage;the burnable portion becomes refuse derived fuel(RDF), used as a supplemental fuel in the coal boilersof the citys power plant to generate electricity [43].


56/84


57/84

57

and syngas are equally of interest. This processproduces these on a weight basis of approximately30%, 35%, and 35%, respectively, and the gas is

called producer gas as indicated above.4.Fastpyrolysis of biomass produces a gas rich in

ethylene that can be used to make alcohols. Fastpyrolysis, where the process is controlled to enablefast heating and cooling rates, produces bio-oil,char, and syngas at weight ratios of 75%, 12%, and13%, respectively. The liquid bio-oil isillustrated in Fig. 17 [45].

The main difference between gasification andpyrolysis is that gasification is performed withoxygen (or air) and pyrolysis is not.

Fig. 17

The resulting bio-oil may be used in diesel engines orconverted to a transportation fuel (synfuel) using


58/84

58

Fischer-Tropsch [46] (to run trucks, cars, and someaircraft engines), or it can be used directly in anelectric power generation process [47], as illustrated

in Fig. 18 [48].

Fig. 18The power generation process may be implemented

by using the bio-fuel to power a combustion turbine[49]. The combustion turbine may be paired with aheat-recovery steam generator to produce steam in

driving another turbine, resulting in a combined cycleconfiguration called an integrated pyrolysis combinedcycle (IPCC) system, illustrated in Fig. 19 [45] (notetph is ton per hour).


59/84

59

Fig. 19

The solid product (bio-char) can be combusted orsequestered as a soil amendment or carbonsequestration agent. Bio-char benefits include

increased soil water availability and organic matterand enhanced nutrient cycling [50]. A recommendedselling price for bio-oil is $0.62 per gallon withcapital costs of $28 million for a 550 ton per day(tpd) facility.


60/84

60

GeothermalEnhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) involvesdrilling two wells 10,000-30,000ft into the Earths

crust. The injection well pumps water into the hotrock producing steam; the steam is then returned tothe surface via the production well and expandedthrough a turbine driving an electric generator, asillustrated in Fig. 20 [51].

Fig. 20

These plants have no emissions. More than 100 GWof power is estimated available in the U.S. Currently,EGS is expensive and will need investment to becompetitive [52]. Scalability depends on the sourcequality, as steam handling equipment is well-


61/84


62/84


63/84

63

Total overnight costs of EGS, including present valueof fuel costs, are $1746/kW, in contrast to nuclear,PC, IGGC, which are $2144, $1119, and $1338 [52].

Off-shore windAll of the material in this section was adapted from[53], unless otherwise indicated.

The US currently has no operational off-short windenergy facilities, although there are at least threefacilities in the planning stages (Massachusetts, LongIsland NY, and Galveston, Texas). In contrast,European offshore wind energy production began in1991 and has grown to include 25 projects in 5countries comprising over 1100 MW, as indicated inFig. 23 [54].

Fig. 23

Figure 24 shows some European installations.


64/84


65/84


66/84

66

Offshore wind costs per kW are quite variable,depending on size of turbines, how many turbines,distance from shore, water depth, mean wind speed,

turbine reliability and maintainability, and siteaccessibility. Some typical costs for North Sea(Europe) off-shore wind are reported as [55]

Turbine costs (inc. tower): $800-1000/kW Cable costs: $500k-$1,000,000/mile (10 miles

out for a 50 MW facility could add $400/kW) Foundation costs:

Costs depend on soil and depthNorth Sea: $300-350/kW

Total overnight costs: $1200-$1800/kWThat actually sounds OK when compared to othertechnologies: recall that some typical numbers forgeothermal is $1746/kW, nuclear is $2144, PC is

$1119, and IGGC is $1338 [52]. However, that doesnot account for the fact that North Sea offshore is in5-12 meter water, and most US water is more than 15meters. Foundation costs increase significantly asdepth increases, possibly to $600/kW or more for 30meter water.

SolarThere are 3 basic ways to utilize solar energy:

photovoltaic, concentrated, and solar heating. In thelast one, solar heating, collectors absorb the solarenergy for direct use in heating water or space in


67/84


68/84

68

pumped to a power generation facility to developsteam for generating electricity. The KramerJunction, California facility is shown in Fig. 27 [56,

57 ]. The overall efficiency from collector to grid, i.e.(Electrical Output Power)/(Total Impinging SolarPower) is about 15%.

Fig. 27Most trough systems today utilize a Rankine cyclesteam process to generate electricity, but an


69/84

69

interesting alternative is the integrated solarcombined cycle system (ISCCS), shown in Fig. 28.Peak thermal-to-electric efficiency can exceed 70%

for an ISCCS plant compared to 50-55% for aconventional gas-fired combined cycle plant. Currentcommercial plants utilizing parabolic troughs usefossil fuels during night hours, but the amount offossil fuel used is limited to a maximum 27% ofelectricity production, allowing the plant to qualify asa renewable energy source.

Fig. 28

The largest operational solar power system at presentis located at Kramer Junction in California, USA,with five fields of 33 MW generation capacity each.There is also a 64 MW plant in Nevada.


70/84

70

Dish/engine systems: From [58], dish/engineconcentrating solar power uses a mirror in the shape

of a dish to collect and concentrates the sun's heatonto a small area where a receiver is located. Thereceiver transfers the sun's energy to a heat engine,usually a Stirling cycle engine, that converts theenergy into power. A facility at Sandia NationalLabs, Fig. 29, in operation since 2005, cost about$6000/kW, but researchers believe that cost willdecrease to $2000/kW before

Fig. 29

Of all the solar technologies that have beendemonstrated on a practical scale the solar dish has


71/84


72/84


73/84

73

Tidal in stream energy: This energy results from themoving mass of water with speed and direction ascaused by the gravitational forces of the sun and the

moon, and centrifugal and inertial forces on theearth's waters. There have been a number of proposeddesigns of tidal-in-stream energy conversion systems(TISECS), as indicated in Fig. 32, but there has beenonly one seabed-fixed installation, Fig. 33, inLynmouth, UK.

Fig. 32

Fig. 33

River in stream energy: This results from thehydrokinetic energy of the moving river water. Thevelocity of the river current is a function of the slope


74/84

74

of the reach and the effect of gravity and theroughness of the riverbed and the effect of frictionalforces slowing the current. River-in-stream energy

conversion systems (RISECS) under considerationare similar to TISECS. It differs from conventionalrun-of-river hydro in that conversion equipment isentirely submerged.

Distributed generationDistributed generation is the use of small-scale powergeneration technologies located close to the load

being served. It includes reciprocating engines,microturbines, fuel cells, combustion gas turbines,and CTs, wind, and solar when those installations arededicated to serve nearby load.Reciprocating engines: These engines use

reciprocating pistons to convert pressure into arotating motion. The standard gasoline engine inautomobiles is a reciprocating engine, but DGapplications are generally fueled by either diesel ornatural gas.

Microturbines: Microturbines are very high-speed,

small combustion turbines, approximately the size ofa refrigerator, with outputs of 25-500 kW, asillustrated in Fig. 34.


75/84

75

Fig. 34

Microturbines consist of a compressor, combustor,turbine, power electronics converter circuit, andgenerator, as illustrated in Fig. 35 [62]. The convertercircuit is needed because of the high frequency powerthat is generated by the microturbine.

Fig. 35Most designs use a high-speed permanent magnet

generator producing variable voltage, variablefrequency AC power. In addition, almost all newinstallations are recuperated to obtain higher electricefficiencies. The recuperator recovers heat fromexhaust gas in order to boost the temperature of the


76/84


77/84

77

the cathode. The hydrogen atom splits into a proton(H+) and an electron. The proton passes through theelectrolyte to the cathode and the electrons travel in

an external circuit through the load. At the cathode,protons combine with hydrogen and oxygen,producing water and heat. Figure 38 illustrates thisprocess.

Fig. 38

There are five types of fuel cells, depending on thechoice of electrolyte and include [63]:

Alkali fuel cells use a solution of potassiumhydroxide in water as their electrolyte. Efficiency isabout 70%, and operating temperature is 150 to 200degrees C, (about 300 to 400 degrees F). Cell outputranges from 300 watts to 5 kilowatts (kW).

Molten Carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) use high-temperature compounds of sodium or magnesiumcarbonates (CO3) as the electrolyte. Efficiencyranges from 60-80%, and operating temperature is


78/84

78

about 650 degrees C (1,200 degrees F). Units withoutput up to 2 MW have been constructed, anddesigns exist for units up to 100 MW.

Phosphoric Acid fuel cells (PAFC) use phosphoricacid as the electrolyte. Efficiency ranges from 40-80%, and operating temperature is between 150-200C (300-400 F). Existing phosphoric acid cells haveoutputs up to 200 kW; 11 MW units have been tested.

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells workwith a polymer electrolyte in the form of a thin,

permeable sheet. Efficiency is about 40-50%, andoperating temperature is about 80 C (175 F). Celloutputs generally range from 50-250 kW. These cellsoperate at a low enough temperature to make themsuitable for homes & cars. All automotiveapplications of fuel cells use this type.

Solid Oxide fuel cells (SOFC) use a hard, ceramiccompound of metal (like calcium or zirconium)oxides (O2) as electrolyte. Efficiency is about 60%,and operating temperatures are about 1,000 degrees C(about 1,800 degrees F). Cells output is up to 100kW. At such high temperatures a reformer is notrequired to extract hydrogen from the fuel, and waste

heat can be recycled to make additional electricity.However, the high temperature limits applications ofSOFC units and they tend to be rather large.


79/84


80/84

80

electricity is $1.50/kg and scales linearly withelectricity cost up to $10/kg at $0.14/kWh [67].

Table 6 summarizes these DG technologies [68].Table 6

Technology RecipEngine:Diesel

RecipEngine:

NG

Microturbine CombustionGas Turbine

Fuel Cell

Size 30kW -6+MW

30kW -6+MW

30-400kW 0.5 - 30+MW 100-3000kW

InstalledCost ($/kW)1

600-1,000

700-1,200

1,200-1,700 400-900 4,000-5,000

Elec.Efficiency(LHV)

30-43% 30-42% 14-30% 21-40% 36-50%

OverallEfficiency2

~80-85%

~80-85%

~80-85% ~80-90% ~80-85%

TotalMaintenanceCosts3($/kWh)

0.005 -0.015

0.007-0.020

0.008-0.015 0.004-0.010 0.0019-0.0153

Footprint(sqft/kW)

.22-.31 .28-.37 .15-.35 .02-.61 .9

Emissions(gm / bhp-hrunlessotherwisenoted)

NOx: 7-9

CO:0.3-0.7

NOx:0.7-13

CO: 1-2

NOx: 9-50ppm

CO: 9-50ppm

NOx:


81/84

81

Final comment:

[1] H. Stoll, Least-cost electric utility planning, John Wiley, 1989.[2] P. Mandal, Efficiency Improvement In Pulverized Coal Based Power Stations,

available athttp://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/aer2006_files/papers/037.pdf.[3] Black and Veatch Presentation to the Kansas Energy Council, Planning for GrowingElectric Generation Demands, March 12, 2008.[4] MIT Coal Study: The Future of Coal in a GHG Constrained World, Deutch,

J.,Moniz, Eds., 2007[5]http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdf

[6] AEP utility starts first US ultra-supercritical coal unit,Dec. 20, 2012,http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/utilities-aep-coal-idUSL1E8NL00F20121221 [7] First and Last: The Ultra-Supercritical Coal-Fired Turk,Power Engineering, June 12, 2013, availableathttp://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-117/issue-6/departments1/power-plant-profile/first-last-the-ultra-supercritical-coal-fired-turk.html.

[8] DOE Clean Coal website,http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/combustion/fluidizedbed_overview.html[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustion .
http://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/aer2006_files/papers/037.pdfhttp://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/aer2006_files/papers/037.pdfhttp://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/aer2006_files/papers/037.pdfhttp://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdfhttp://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdfhttp://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdfhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/utilities-aep-coal-idUSL1E8NL00F20121221http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/utilities-aep-coal-idUSL1E8NL00F20121221http://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-117/issue-6/departments1/power-plant-profile/first-last-the-ultra-supercritical-coal-fired-turk.htmlhttp://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-117/issue-6/departments1/power-plant-profile/first-last-the-ultra-supercritical-coal-fired-turk.htmlhttp://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-117/issue-6/departments1/power-plant-profile/first-last-the-ultra-supercritical-coal-fired-turk.htmlhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/combustion/fluidizedbed_overview.htmlhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/combustion/fluidizedbed_overview.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidized_bed_combustionhttp://fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/combustion/fluidizedbed_overview.htmlhttp://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-117/issue-6/departments1/power-plant-profile/first-last-the-ultra-supercritical-coal-fired-turk.htmlhttp://www.power-eng.com/articles/print/volume-117/issue-6/departments1/power-plant-profile/first-last-the-ultra-supercritical-coal-fired-turk.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/utilities-aep-coal-idUSL1E8NL00F20121221http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdfhttp://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-5-sep-oct/Tech_Frontier_Ultra-Supercritical.pdfhttp://www.ese.iitb.ac.in/aer2006_files/papers/037.pdf


82/84


83/84

83

[32] Kennedy Maize; Angela Neville, JD; and Dr. Robert Peltier, PE 2009 IndustryForecast: New Power Politics Will Determine Generations Path, in Power, available atwww.powermag.com/nuclear/2009-Industry-Forecast-New-Power-Politics-Will-Determine-Generations-Path_1616_p3.html.[33]http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.html

[34] Report #: SR-OIAF/2003-01, May 2003,www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/rps2/methodology.html.[35] US DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Office, 20% Wind Energy by 2030:Increasing Wind Energys Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply, May 2008, available athttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf.

[36] Wind Power Costs Depend on Ownership, Financing, Wind Energy Weekly #709,

12 August 1996, available athttp://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html.[37] Wind on the Wires website, http://www.windonthewires.org/index.html.[38] Minnesota, 4 neighbors plan for wind power, September 18, 2008 available athttp://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/18/windenergy/?refid=0

[39] R. Bain, An overview of biomass combined heat and power technologies, Proc. of

the IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004, June 6-10, 2004, pp. 1657- 1659 Vol. 2.[40] DOE EnergyEfficiency and Renewable Energy web pages,

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biopower.html.[41] A. Rajvanshi, Biomass Gasification, chapter 4 from Alternative Energy inAgriculture, Vol. II, Ed. D. Yogi Goswami, CRC Press, 1986, pgs. 83-102, available athttp://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/gasbook.pdf.

[42] Webpage of Chandrakant Turare, ARTES Institute, University of Flensburg,Germany, http://members.tripod.com/~cturare/pdc.htm .[43] City of Ames webpages,www.cityofames.org/worksweb/resourcerecovery/default.htm.[44] Alliant Energy webpage:

www.alliantenergy.com/docs/groups/public/documents/pub/p011101.hcsp.[45] R. Brown, Advanced Power Generation Technologies for Renewables, available atwww.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Symposium/Brown.pdf.

[46] Wright M., Brown R. C. Distributed processing of biomass to bio-oil forsubsequent production of Fischer-Tropsch liquids Biofpr[47] Chiaramonti D., Oasmaa A., Solantaust Y. Power generation using fast pyrolysisliquids from biomass Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11 (2007) 1056-1086

[48] J. Wimberly, Commercial-scale Generation of Renewable Electricity from anEnergy Farm in Southern Florida, available athttp://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electr icity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-

Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/.[49] Ringer M., Putsche V., Scahill J., Large-Scale Pyrolysis Oil Production: ATechnology Assessment and Economic Analysis. NREL Report NREL/TP-510-37779November 2006

[50] Laird D. A. The charcoal vision: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneouslyproducing bioenergy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil and waterquality Agronomy Journalv 100, n 1 (2008) 178-801
http://www.powermag.com/nuclear/2009-Industry-Forecast-New-Power-Politics-Will-Determine-Generations-Path_1616_p3.htmlhttp://www.powermag.com/nuclear/2009-Industry-Forecast-New-Power-Politics-Will-Determine-Generations-Path_1616_p3.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.htmlhttp://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/rps2/methodology.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/rps2/methodology.htmlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdfhttp://www.awea.org/faq/cost.htmlhttp://www.awea.org/faq/cost.htmlhttp://www.awea.org/faq/cost.htmlhttp://www.windonthewires.org/index.htmlhttp://www.windonthewires.org/index.htmlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biopower.htmlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biopower.htmlhttp://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/gasbook.pdfhttp://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/gasbook.pdfhttp://members.tripod.com/~cturare/pdc.htmhttp://members.tripod.com/~cturare/pdc.htmhttp://www.cityofames.org/worksweb/resourcerecovery/default.htmhttp://www.cityofames.org/worksweb/resourcerecovery/default.htmhttp://www.alliantenergy.com/docs/groups/public/documents/pub/p011101.hcsphttp://www.alliantenergy.com/docs/groups/public/documents/pub/p011101.hcsphttp://www.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Symposium/Brown.pdfhttp://www.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Symposium/Brown.pdfhttp://www.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Symposium/Brown.pdfhttp://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/Cubemiddle-35207-Wimberly-Commercial-scale-Generation-ofRenewable-Electricity-Energy-Farm-Southern-Florida-Presenta-as-Entertainment-ppt-powerpoint/http://www.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Symposium/Brown.pdfhttp://www.econ.iastate.edu/outreach/agriculture/programs/2001_Renewable_Energy_Symposium/Brown.pdfhttp://www.alliantenergy.com/docs/groups/public/documents/pub/p011101.hcsphttp://www.cityofames.org/worksweb/resourcerecovery/default.htmhttp://members.tripod.com/~cturare/pdc.htmhttp://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/gasbook.pdfhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/abcs_biopower.htmlhttp://www.windonthewires.org/index.htmlhttp://www.awea.org/faq/cost.htmlhttp://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdfhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/rps2/methodology.htmlht

Documents

Energy Conversion Technologies