FSC 401
INTRODUCTION TO FUEL TECHNOLOGY
This course is meant to
provide an “introduction to the scientific and engineering principles of fuel
technology.” It is a much more ‘technical’ version of EGEE 101, whose
objective is to provide an appreciation for the links between energy
consumption, environmental quality and socio-economic realities.
We shall accomplish this
objective in the following way:
(1) Show how simple mass and
energy balances, as well as thermodynamic and kinetic analyses, go a long way
toward understanding the key energy options (and dilemmas!) of the modern
society.
(2) Use the Internet to (a)
minimize the transfer of factual information, (b) maximize our ability to find
the most relevant and up-to-date information, and (c) maximize our ability to
adopt informed and critical views regarding energy and
environmental policies.
We are interested in knowing
the concepts
and the important
details… Everything else that is relevant, as we shall see, can
be found on the Internet, if and when we need it (e.g., using google.com).
(Regarding Academic Integrity, we shall follow, if
necessary, University Policy 49-20. See also www.ems.psu.edu/students/integrity.)
Grade
scale: A, >93; A-, 90-93; B+,
85-89; B, 80-84; B-, 75-79; C+, 70-74; C, 60-69; D, 50-59; F, <50.
(Borderline ‘cases’ are resolved based on extra credit assignments.)
In lieu of class activity
#1: Find the most updated information
on the DOE web site (www.eia.doe.gov)
regarding the consumption of energy in the USA according to the various sources
(coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, etc.). Download the relevant
table (*.xls) containing data as a function of time (at least the last 30-40
years). Make a graph that clearly illustrates the answer to the
following two important questions: (a) Has the relative contribution of
natural gas increased or decreased over the past decade? (b) Do the
unconventional renewable sources (i.e., solar, wind, geothermal, biomass)
represent today more than 5% of the total energy consumption?
Does
your graph look similar to this one?
In lieu of class activity
#2: A May 27 article in The Economist, “Dirty king coal”,
summarizes very well some of the most important current dilemmas regarding
electricity generation in the 21st century. In order to “digest” it
properly, do the following:
(i)
Download it from
the PSU library web site (or use the old-fashioned way, by retrieving it from
the stacks).
(ii)
Summarize what
you believe to be the three most important points that the article makes.
(iii)
Using elementary
mass balances and/or thermodynamics, try to explain the argument that
“‘ultrasupercritical’ generation [of electricity] can cut CO2
emissions by a fifth”, presumably because “[s]tandard pulverized-coal (PC)
generation can be made a bit cleaner by burning the fuel at higher
temperatures”.
(iv)
Using elementary
mass balances and thermodynamics, show whether the following statement makes
sense: “If 60% of the 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 that America
produces every year from coal-fired power stations were liquefied for storage,
it would take up the same amount of space as all the oil the country consumes.”
[Assume that the USA consumes roughly a billion tons of coal per year and some
20 million barrels of oil per day. (Can you verify these ball-park numbers?)]
A recent NYT editorial
mentioned that some 2 million barrels of oil per day could be saved if U.S.
cars had, on average, an efficiency of 35 instead of 25 mpg. As we discussed in
class, here
is the analysis meant to confirm (or disprove?) this assertion.
Another simple mass/energy
balance analysis can be carried out to understand the meaning of the European
Commission’s goal for CO2
emissions from cars by the year 2012: 130 g/km
(“The road ahead”, The Economist,
09/13/2007). How far is this from the current U.S. fuel economy standards of
27.5 mpg?
Homework #1. Be sure to start working on
the HW asap, in order to get maximum benefit from our discussions in class
about it. (I want you all to get 100% on all the HWs... There is
no reason not to, since most of the HW answers will essentially be provided in
class.)
-Here is one
version of the solution.
Note: A HW dropbox has been activated in Angel for
your convenience. Please use it to send the electronic version of your HW (now
and in the future), if more convenient than submitting the paper version.
The following report on fuel
technologies in the National Geographic
of August 2005 is worth reading and analyzing, especially for the numbers it
contains: “Future Power: Where will the world get its next energy fix?”.
Example 1: “Replace one incandescent lightbulb with a
compact fluorescent lamp and [over its lifetime] you will save this 500 pound
pile of coal.”
(Can show?)
Example 2: “Much of the world’s electricity is produced in
coal-fired generators that belch carbon dioxide, mercury, and sulfur into the
atmosphere.”
(Correct? Precise enough?)
Example
3: “Panels covering less than a quarter of the roof and pavement space in
cities and suburbs could supply the
(Can verify? Assumptions
reasonable?)
Example
4: “Wind is currently the biggest success story in renewable energy.
(True? Impressive?)
Example
5: “Powering all the world’s vehicles with biofuels would mean doubling the
amount of land devoted to farming.”
(Can verify? Assumptions
needed?)
Example
6: Imagining New
York without fossil fuels…
(Comments?)
Example
7: “Without a big push from government… we may
be condemned to rely on increasingly dirty fossil fuels as cleaner ones like oil
and gas run out, with dire consequences for the climate.”
(Makes sense? True?
Comments?)
Summary of concepts
and important details (to be discussed) regarding the links energy ßà
environment and energy supply ßà energy demand and the laws of energy conversion:
-fossil fuel combustion (almost) inevitably produces air
pollution (especially NOx and CO2… Why?)
-energy supply is of course practically limitless… but
certain forms of energy are much less plentiful than others (Which ones?) See www.eia.doe.gov and www.usgs.gov.
-use of the reserves/consumption index (e.g., X barrels/(Y
barrels/yr) = Z yrs) is convenient… But is it realistic? What is it good for?
-with all the uncertainties involved in estimating reserves, one observation is certain: the Hubbert curve for oil and gas will peak (maybe it
already has!?) much earlier than that of coal.
-energy demand (policies) should reflect these “laws of
nature” and not only day-to-day economic realities…
-2nd law analysis should help us to understand
the ‘folly’(and the convenience?) of using electricity to heat our homes, or
the inefficiency of an incandescent light bulb: low efficiency for processes
with decrease in entropy! It costs $$ to go against nature (air conditioner vs.
open windows)…
-wind (mv2/2) vs. hydro (mgh): example of a law
of nature that should keep us optimistic but sober about wind turbines… and
explains the hopes for
-By “air quality” we mean absence of pollutants… Right? But
what is a ‘pollutant’? What is the difference between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’
pollutants?
The most authoritative source
of info on air quality: www.epa.gov.
These days, the
energy-environment link is not so much S à SO2, N
or N2 à NOx, C
à soot, or C à CO, but C à CO2 (i.e., potentially damaging climate change). The National Geographic summarizes the
business-as-usual trends as follows…
Therefore, the “holy grail”
of energy supply for vehicles these days is hydrogen. The National Geographic article summarized two “hydrogen futures”
scenarios: Conventional technology Zero emissions technology
See also the October 2007
issue of National Geographic: “The
Carbon Crisis” or “Carbon’s New Math”. Let’s do the math! For example, let’s
show that, indeed, one billion metric tons of carbon per year (“one wedge”) can
be saved if we “improve fuel economy of the two billion cars expected on the
road by 2057 to 60 mpg from 30 mpg”.
For our discussion of
renewable fuels (during the first week of November), the related article in the
same issue of National Geographic,
“Green Dreams: making fuel from crops could be good for the planet – after a
breakthrough or two”, will be quite useful!
The bottom line of all
discussions about energy conversions: EFFICIENCY
(useful energy output divided by total energy input)
(See Chapters 1-4 in the book-on-the-web… Useful bedtime
reading?)
Here is an example
of (a simple but important) exercise in parametric
sensitivity analysis.
We shall have no
class meetings on 9/25, 9/27 and 10/2. Instead, we shall have the first exam
(see below) and you will have an in-lieu-of-class activity (see below).
In-lieu-of-class-activity
#3 (to be uploaded in Angel dropbox by midnight
10/2): View “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” (a
PBS series based on Daniel Yergin’s Pulitzer Prize book). The four VCR tapes
(Parts I-VIII) are available (on 2-hour reserve) in the EMS library. Prepare a
four-page summary of the main issues discussed in this TV-series, paying
special attention to the following questions:
-What happened in
-What was the first large use for petroleum?
-What was John D. Rockefeller’s claim to fame (and
fortune)?
-How did Henry Ford change petroleum’s fate at the
turn of the 20th century?
-Who was Ida Tarbell and what was her claim to fame?
-Who was Marcus Samuel and what was his claim to fame?
-Why is (was) oil “a business too important to be left
to businessmen”? What happened in
-What is a ‘gusher’? Who were/are the ‘wildcatters’?
-Give some examples that support the statement that
“oil [is] the untold story of World War II.” What was the importance of “100
octane” fuel?
-What part did the “synthetic fuels” play in World War
II?
-Who was Walter Teagle and what was his relationship
to J. D. Rockefeller?
-Why was Japan interested in
the “Dutch Indies”?
-What is/was the “tinderbox”?
-What happened in 1973 in the
-What happened in 1979 in the
-What happened in 1991 in the
-Which decisions related to the Middle East had been
made in
-Was there a single event that propelled the Japanese
automobile industry into world dominance?
-When was Alaskan oil ‘discovered’ and developed, and
why?
-Where in the world is the “new
-In what context is
-Why (and when) was the Exxon Valdez accident a
“watershed in the history of the oil industry?”
COAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Chs. 7, 10 and 11 in the book-on-the-web)
For a very readable recent
account of coal’s importance in the development of modern society, see Barbara
Freese’s “Coal:
A Human History.” Here is her conclusion:
“If
we do trigger drastic climate changes, all of coal’s contributions to the
empowerment of humanity will be overshadowed by the enormous price of that
power. Our excuses for continuing to burn coal while ignoring the threat of
climate change for so many years – our lack of scientific certainty, our desire
to keep our electric rates low, our fear of a slowed economy, and our
reluctance to make sacrifices others are not forced to make – will ring hollow
to those coping with the catastrophic consequences of our actions.
If,
on the other hand, we can actually make the transition to a safer energy system
before we cause more than mild climate changes, our coal use won’t be strongly
condemned by future generations. Some of our descendants may simply see coal as
a strangely primitive fuel and wonder how we tolerated it for as long as we
did. The more thoughtful among them may recognize it as an important energy
source that, for all its faults, brought us through a sort of prolonged
industrial childhood and ultimately gave us power to build a world that no
longer needed coal.”
Another recent analysis of
the coal industry was provided by Jeff Goodell: “Big Coal – The Dirty Secret
behind
“We may
not like to admit it, but our shiny white iPod economy is propped up by dirty
black rocks. This was not how things were supposed to go in
What can we do?
First, we must recognize that the world faces two
enormous challenges in the coming years: the end of cheap oil and the arrival
of global warming… Second, it is important to see that the barriers to change
are not technological but political… Third, we need to find ways to make the
invisible visible. I mean this in the broadest possible sense. Big Coal has
thrived largely because the costs of air pollution, miners’ safety, devastated
mountains, and global warming are invisible to us as consumers of electricity…
Old coal plants are more than just relics of an
earlier era; they are giant bulwarks against change, mechanical beasts that are
holding back a flood of ideas and innovation. When we muster up the courage to
knock them down, the revolution will begin. It’s not that I have blind faith
that technology will save us or that I think we can snap our fingers and
replace all the coal plants in the world with wind turbines and solar panels; I
simply believe that it’s within our grasp to figure out less destructive ways
to create and consume the energy we need.”
-coal composition, C/H ratio, S content, ash ‘content’,
widely varying heating values
-PCC
(C+O2), nice example of Arrhenius-type
behavior (high T necessary)
-FBC
(AFBC, PFBC), CaO + SO2 + 0.5O2 = CaSO4 (intermediate
T OK, so lower NOx as well)
-IGCC (see, for
example, http://www.tampaelectric.com/news/powerstation/polk/igcc/),
C+H2O, C+O2 (Why? Thermo software:
Try StanJan or Chemeq.bas!)
-coal
liquefaction (makes sense at >$50/bbl?), C+H2 (OK, but where will
the H2 come from?)
See National Geographic of March 2006, pp. 96-123.
-“Coal is king again. Oil supplies are tight and natural
gas prices are spiking, but coal could light our houses and power our factories
for centuries. The price of this energy abundance could be high, however… ”
-“… the giant Gibson generating station is … gulping 25
tons of coal each minute, sending thousand-degree steam blasting through
turbines that churn out more than 3,000 megawatts of electric power… pumping
enough power into the grid for three million people.”
-“The
-“Who has coal? The world has more than a trillion tons of
readily available coal: 27% in the
-“Who uses coal now? Global coal consumption is roughly
five billion tons a year, with
-“A hundred miles up the Wabash River from the Gibson plant
is a small power station that looks nothing like Gibson’s mammoth boilers and
steam turbines. This one resembles an oil refinery, all tanks and silvery
tubes. Instead of burning coal, the
THERMODYNAMICS OF FUEL
TECHNOLOGY
Introductory example: The heat capacity (Cp) of a substance,
and the temperature dependence of Cp, is by far one of its MOST important
fundamental properties, because many other of its properties as well as its
behavior can be predicted from it. Therefore, it is very important to have a
reliable Cp=f(T) function
for substances of interest. Use at least three different sources to construct a
graph of Cp vs. T for carbon and for NO.
Once you have reliable Cp
vs. T info, you can use readily available software (e.g., Chemeq.bas) to
quickly answer some of the fundamental questions about the fuel technologies of
interest, many of which are based on relatively straightforward chemical
processes.
PETROLEUM SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (Chs. 8, 10 and 11 in the book-on-the-web)
For a Pulitzer prize-winning
account of petroleum’s importance in the development of modern society, and
especially in the history of the last 150 years, see Daniel Yergin’s “The Prize: The epic quest for oil, money, and
power.”
For a recent analysis of the
potential effect of petroleum on national (and international) politics, as well
as society’s goals, see “The Energy Mandate” column by Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times. For a more recent
analysis of a key issue – vehicle efficiency standards – by the same author in
the same newspaper, see “Et tu, Toyota!?”
(Can you find these quickly
using ProQuest?)
-composition, C/H ratio, S content, relatively constant
heating value for a wide variety of products
-why need ‘refining’ before use?
-gasoline: SIE (octane number)
-reformulated gasoline
-diesel fuel: CIE (cetane number)… Does
its composition really vary (significantly) between the products made in Europe
and
-Chevron1
(www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L2_4_fs.htm)
-Chevron2
(www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/diesel/L2_5_fs.htm
-jet fuel: turbines
-fuel oil #2: home furnaces
-fuel oil #6: industrial furnaces
-petrochemistry
KINETICS OF FUEL TECHNOLOGY
Here is a summary of the
very instructive analogy
between electric circuits (remember Physics 101?) and other (e.g.,
chemical) rate processes.
Let’s
show, using elementary chemical kinetics, why particle size is so important in
coal combustion and why ‘pulverized’ coal (ca. 0.1 mm) is necessary for
combustion in entrained-flow reactors, whereas much larger particles are
sufficient (and necessary!) for FBC.
The
following equations for characteristic combustion times can be derived. (The
complete derivation is outside the scope of our course…)
tdif = (rp Rp2)/(2
M DO2 CO2)
trxn = rp Rp/(k
CO2)
Note
in the above expression for trxn that the density of the carbon should be in mol C/cm3
(and not the more common g C/cm3), and the implicit assumption is
that the reaction stoichiometry is 1 mol C/1 mol O2 (which of course
makes sense). In the attached
Mathematica file, ‘play’ with the key parameters to convince yourself that
at high temperatures diffusion of O2 is the rate-determining
step and that at low temperatures chemical reaction is the RDS. Show
also the effects of particle size, as they relate to FBC vs. PCC conditions.
For
more exercises on the Arrhenius equation, see this web
site.
NATURAL GAS SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY (Chs. 9 and 11 in the
book-on-the-web)
For a recent analysis of the
prospects for greater reliance on natural gas in the coming decades, see Julian
Darley’s “High Noon for Natural Gas: The New
Energy Crisis.”
-composition, C/H ratio (Why the most convenient and
environmentally friendly of all fossil fuels?)
-really plentiful (for decades to come)? And
affordable? Let’s compare some hard numbers! (For an optimistic view
see, for example, C&E News of
10/3/2005.)
-and what about LNG?
-why do electric utilities love it (for the moment)?
-does
-and what about those of us who literally can’t live
without it?
-is it possible (or sustainable?) that both coal- and
gas-derived electricity cost the same, ca. 5 cents/kWh, to produce? (See NatGeog,
8/2005, p. 18)
Homework 2: due 10/18.
-Here is a
template for Problem #1. Be sure to analyze carefully the calculations in each
one of the relevant cells, so that you can adapt it confidently to your needs.
-Here
is a template for Problem #2. Let’s modify it to include another one of the RFG
additives.
-Here is the
van’t Hoff diagram for lime sulfation (CaO+SO2+0.5O2=CaSO4)
and limestone decomposition (CaCO3=CaO+CO2), together
with an analysis of the reliability of Cp vs. T polynomials. Can you
get the same graph? (Are all the substances needed available in the
react.dta database? Do you agree -- based on a comparison with information
provided by, for example, Perry (18.52+0.02197T-156800/T2) -- that
the following should be used?)
“CaSO4",-1305.,-1417.2,70.2,9.87,0,0,0
In-lieu-of-class activity
#4: A movie “Hot enough for you?”
will be available for your viewing in the Music and Media Center at Pattee library
(2-h reserve). Prepare a summary of its contents and its main message ( 1-2
pages), and be prepared to discuss it in class next week.
In-lieu-of-class activity
#5: Take a quick look at the Stern Review on the economics of climate
change and construct a graph, either based on a table provided there or
based on several of its own graphs, which will illustrate an important
technical message to be considered by politicians and decision makers regarding
the future of fossil fuel technologies.
SOx REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES (see www.epa.gov)
-before
combustion: coal ‘cleaning’, coal conversion (gasification or liquefaction);
petroleum refining (HDS); gas separation
-during combustion (FBC): remember the thermodynamic
analysis of S capture?
-after combustion (FGD: absorption, adsorption, see FSC
430)
-solubility of H2S (obtained in fuel
gasification) vs. SO2 (obtained in fuel combustion) vs. partial
pressure!?
Here the key issue is the
required efficiency of the removal device. This is obtained as follows:
-determine the uncontrolled emissions (from the mass
balance; double-check by consulting AP-42): X
-find out the allowed emissions for your particular case
(e.g., NSPS; not to be
confused with NAAQS): Y
-required efficiency, E = (X-Y)/X
-screen available technologies (e.g., www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s01.pdf,
Table 1-1-1) and eliminate those whose efficiency is lower than E
NOx REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES (see www.epa.gov)
-during combustion (T control, A/F ratio control)
-after combustion (adsorption, selective reduction)
Here is an important
NOx equilibrium analysis.
Here also the key issue is
the required efficiency of the removal device. The procedure is the same as for
SOx, except that the mass balance does not help much. (Why?) Be sure to get X from the most authoritative source
(Federal Register, e.g., Vol. 63, No. 179, 9/16/1998)!
UNBURNED HYDROCARBON
(VOC) REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES
-VOC’s contribute to smog formation (see FSC 430)
-‘incineration’ or “thermal oxidation” or “catalytic
oxidation” (fancy terms for combustion)
-the kinetics of the reaction is the key here… See example for benzene
vs. toluene destruction.
-adsorption (but what then…? Easier incineration? Recovery?)
CATALYTIC CONVERTER: Three-way catalyst! (See, for example, http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question66.htm.)
-CO oxidized to CO2 (Here is a
stoichiometric analysis of “fuel-rich combustion”, when not enough O2
is supplied for complete combustion. See a more ‘sophisticated’ version here.)
-unburned hydrocarbons oxidized to CO2 and H2O
-NOx reduced to N2
How does it accomplish this
‘miracle’? à “Highly dispersed noble metal on a honeycomb support”
Let’s get a feel for what
this means by doing the following back-of-the-envelope calculations (extra credit assignment):
Very small Pt particles
(essentially a ‘monolayer’) are deposited on a ceramic substrate such that
their surface area is 100 m2/g. (Is this a reasonable number?)
Estimate the maximum amount of Pt in the catalytic converter if the converter
does not cost more than $500 to produce. (This IS a reasonable number! Right?)
With these assumptions (and some others), estimate the fraction of the world’s
production of Pt that would be consumed by the automobile industry.
(Note: A similar calculation
is also important to assess the impact of fuel-cell-based cars on the precious
metals market.)
ACID RAIN and SMOG
-SOx and NOx à H2SO4 and HNO3
-What is smoke
and what is fog? (soot particles, H2O
and other droplets)
-beneficial vs. detrimental ozone
-Technology exists, but who is going to pay… (see FSC 430)
GREENHOUSE GASES
-The Kyoto Protocol went into effect... and Al Gore
and IPCC won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize... So, what do we do now?
-Science just plain “makes sense”, so it’s better to be
safe than sorry OR cause-effect relationship established (unequivocally), so we
MUST act?
-CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs
-For one (feasible?), conveniently graphical proposal
toward a solution, see http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/CMI_Stab_Wedges_Movie.swf.
Here is an example
of a detailed analysis of a CO2
“stabilization wedge” (Socolow and coworkers, CMI,
Note: Be sure to also review
the relevant web pages on the “Fuel Technology for Poets” web site!
Not surprisingly, the Stern Report,
published recently, is also gaining lots of publicity. Its bottom line is
perhaps surprising: Even though the global temperatures are predicted to
increase as much as 5-6 oC by 2100, the world apparently could
stabilise CO2 concentrations at a reasonable level at a cost of 1%
of GDP by 2050. As The Economist put
it (“Stern warning”, 11/02/06), “[j]ust as people spend a small slice of their
incomes on buying insurance on the off-chance that their house might burn
down…, so the world should invest a small proportion of its resources in trying
to avert the risk of boiling the planet.”
How well have we been doing in
removing air pollutants? (Any
updates? Extra credit assignment!)
And what about the CO2
emissions in developing countries, such as China? (What are
the key issues here?)
Exam 2 (to be posted by midnight Tuesday (10/30), due in Angel
dropbox by midnight Thursday (11/1).
NUCLEAR ENERGY
For a summary of the
bottom-line issues (sufficient for our purposes), see Chs. 12-15 in the
book-on-the-web…
Use the Internet to explore
the Yucca Mountain issue to see how close we are
to solving one of the three big problems associated with the (eagerly?)
anticipated “nuclear industry comeback”. (See, for example, National Geographic, April 2006: “The long
shadow of Chernobyl” & “Nuclear power
risking a comeback: it’s scary; it’s expensive; it could save the earth”.)
Which one is this? (And which ones are the other two?)
Extra credit
assignment: A bizarre new,
hypothetical and “surprising weapon” is described by D.G. McNeil, Jr. in the
NYT of 11/25/2006: “If substantial amounts of polonium 210 were used to poison
Alexander V. Litvinenko, whoever did it presumably had access to a high-level
nuclear laboratory… Polonium 210 does its damage
by emitting alpha particles, which have enough energy to tear apart the genetic
machinery of cells, killing them outright or causing them to mutate into
tumor-producing forms. It gives off 5,000 times more alpha particles than does the same amount of
radium.” Show where this number comes from!
(The half-lives of Po-210, Ra-223, Ra-224, Ra-226 and Ra-228 are, respectively,
138.4 d, 11.43 d, 3.66 d, 1600 y and 5.76 y. (Note that 1 becquerel = 1 nuclear
disintegration per second, and that 1 curie = 3.7x1010
disintegrations/s, equivalent to the decay of 1 g of Ra-226.)
A follow up: The NYT of 12/03/2006 (“Polonium,
$22.50 Plus Tax”, by W. J. Broad) reports that ingestion of 3000 microcuries of Po-210 is a lethal dose. If all of
this energy is absorbed in human tissue, how many rems
does this correspond to? Does this information agree with that provided in Table 15-5? (For additional information, see this “spec sheet”
from the hps.org web site.)
Any updates on this 21st century James-Bond-type
(but non-fictional!) story? (And what does this have to do with the future of
nuclear energy in the USA and the world?)
Summarize briefly what we
mean by nuclear ‘proliferation’ and explore the importance (and the list of
signatories) of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. (And what does this have
to do with the future of nuclear energy in the USA and the world?)
What is IAEA?
Extra credit assignment: How
much uranium is available in the world and for how many 1000 MW(e) reactors
would that be enough?
HW3 (due 11/13) : A (the?) major obstacle to the ‘renaissance’ of
nuclear energy in the USA is the accumulation of high-level nuclear waste
(i.e., spent fuel rods) in places not designed for its storage. With the help
of the Internet -- and its powerful search engines and reliable sources of
information -- write a well-documented two-page summary of the specific nature
and the magnitude of this problem. Attach as many tables and/or graphs as
necessary to construct a convincing story, including its relationship to, and
attitude toward, the Yucca Mountain project. As a culmination of this “research
project”, make a comment about its relationship to the following
situation regarding the nation’s coal-fired power plants (see NYT of
10/19/2007).
-See, for example, “Spent fuel pool” in Wikipedia.
-Can you find (and can you verify?!) the NRC statement
that, “if all the 160,000 spent fuel assemblies currently in storage were
assembled in one place, they would only cover a football field about 51/2 yards
high”?
-The readily available graph provided by the NRC on its web
site is not really very informative... Is it? In contrast, some years ago USA Today published a detailed inventory
of spent fuel rods in EACH one of the hundred or so power plants. Can you find
it?
RENEWABLE ENERGY
-for
a summary of the bottom-line issues, see Chs. 16 and 17 in the book-on-the-web…
-see also the most recent media reports, e.g., August 2005
and October 2007 issue of National Geographic…
In the latter, let’s focus on understanding (and agreeing with?) the key numbers
shown for corn ethanol, cane ethanol, biodiesel and
cellulosic ethanol.
-from the more recent media reports, it seems that wind energy has been making important progress… Let’s
find out the maximum power of a modern, commercially available wind turbine…
And also let’s scrutinize its contribution to the energy supply of the
-How are solar energy companies doing these days? What
products are they offering? Can we buy these at Home Depot or Lowes? Is NREL
helping?
-Extra credit: provide an update
for Figure 16-9 and comment on the recent hydroelectricity trends in the USA.
Residential comfort
-Read
-Let’s
analyze the consumption in an
all-electric home in State College, PA, and use it to understand why a home
in
ELECTRICITY DEMAND
-Read Ch. 18 in the book-on-the-web, and skim through Chs.
12-15 in preparation for a discussion of nuclear energy issues
-Be sure to analyze a graph that shows the historical and
most recent trends in the use of various energy sources for electricity
generation
-Is IGCC already important? What are its virtues?
Any liabilities?
-Is the use of natural gas important? Is it sustainable?
-Be sure to understand the difference between capacity
(kW) and generation (kWh)
-Check on the recent status of “demand-side management”
of electricity
-Check on the (increasing?) importance of IPP’s
-Is deregulation working? Is it progressing (smoothly)?
HW4 (due 12/6):
(1) Complete as much as possible the Excel spreadsheet on
the virtues and liabilities of the four alternative transportation fuels
discussed in the recent National Geographic article.
(2) Answer the following review questions or investigations
in the book-on-the-web: RQ16-2, RQ16-4,
RQ16-5, RQ17-2, RQ17-3, RQ17-4, RQ18-2, RQ18-5, I18-6, I18-11, RQ19-6, RQ19-12,
RQ20-1, RQ20-3, RQ21-1, RQ21-2, RQ21-3.
In-lieu-of-class
activity for 12/4: Watch the movie
“The Inconvenient Truth” (on reserve in Pattee Library), prepare a summary of
its main arguments and be prepared to discuss it during the last week of class.
HW5 (due 12/11): See syllabus... If you need help or advice in the selection
of ‘appropriate’ or ‘suitable’ media reports, contact me asap!
Group
1: Michael Allegro (msa5029), Ali Ausat (ara154), Gregory
Babe (gbb5000), Craig Blowers (cmb5002)
Oral presentation on fossil fuel supply
issue(s), including non-fossil alternatives
Group 2: Trinh Desa (tcd5005), Michael Giangiordano (mfg149),
Eltahir Gotar (eeg5001), Christopher Justin (cjj5015)
Oral presentation on conventional air
pollution issue(s)
Group 3: Brenton Kemp
(bak5024), James Reilly (jrr225), Francis Richey (fwr5002), Amanda Shoup
(ars5059)
Oral presentation
on fossil fuel demand issue(s), including non-fossil alternatives
Group 4:
Matthew Simon (mds5101), Ryan Smith (rms5023), Terry White (tkw122), Joseph
Zimmerman (jrz5001)
Oral presentation
on non-conventional air pollution issue (global warming)
transportation
sector
-Our
pride or our “Achilles heel”? Your reactions to
“Driving Passion”? (Extra credit essay… on reserve in
-How is ‘
-Improve
(drastically?) CAFE standards?
-Develop better public transportation? (The Shinkansen
solution?)
-Alternative fuels ‘good’ enough? (Which ones? Short term
vs. medium term vs. long term… At $3/gallon of gasoline and $13.90/10^6
BTU of natural gas, which is ‘cheaper’? Is this the only relevant
consideration?)
-How does one find statistical information? (Note that www.aama.com is NOT what it used to be… See p.
423 in the book-on-the-web.)
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/index.html,
e.g., Table 1-16… Let’s make a quick graph and analyze its explicit and
implicit messages!
-In its 12/01/2006 issue, the PSU’s Daily Collegian discusses “hydrogen fuel use” for one of
Top-selling cars in the USA
since 1990 (Source: Ward’s Automotive Yearbook and Automotive News):
1991: Honda Accord (400,000)
1992: Ford Taurus (410,000)
1993: Ford Taurus (360,000)
1994: Ford Taurus (400,000)
1995: Ford Taurus (370,000)
1996: Ford Taurus (400,000)
1997: Toyota Camry (400,000)
1998: Toyota Camry (430,000)
1999:
2000:
2001:
2002:
2003: Toyota Camry (410,000)
2004:
2005:
2006: Toyota Camry (381,570 thru November)
For earlier years see updated
Tables 20-1 and 20-2 in the
book-on-the-web…
Top ten U.S.
passenger car assembly plants (Source: Ward’s Automotive Yearbook)… See
also NYT of 12/05/2006, “As Auto Prosperity Shifts South, Two Towns Offer a
Study in Contrasts”.
Update for
Figures 20-9 and 20-10 in the book-on-the-web (Source: 2005 Ward’s Motor
Vehicle Facts & Figures). Are we really importing less Japanese cars? See this graph for a
clarification…
Update for Figure
20-2...
Have diesel-engine cars
become more popular in the
What do all these
stats tell you (e.g., about the future of
Example of CRITICAL analysis of a media report:
(a) Select a recent report that expresses a point of view
(e.g., advocates some fuel technology ‘policy’).
-“Bringing an energy bill
home”, NYT, 12/4/07, p. A34: “... [the] country ... badly needs a rational
energy strategy” and “Mr. Bush and Mr. Domenici shoud not stand in the way.”
(b) Summarize the stated (and the non-stated) PRO’s.
-“reduce both America’s dependence on foreign oil
and its emissions of the greenhouse gases.”
-“first meaningful increase in fuel efficiency
standards for cars and light trucks, including SUV’s, in more than 30 years.”
-“[t]he bill includes ... a big increase in the
production and distribution of advanced forms of ethanol from sources other
than corn.”
-“[a]nother critical provision ... would require
utilities to generate 15 percent of their power by 2020 from a combination of
improved efficiency and renewable energy sources.”
(c) Summarize any (stated?) CON’s.
-none stated...
-Will incentives for non-corn-based ethanol be
designed properly, such that this option will be feasible beyond the lifetime
of, say, tax credits?
-Will the efficiency increase be sufficient to
make a meaningful difference?
-etc.
(d) Express your OWN point of view, based on agreement(s) or
disagreement(s) with the authors’ point of view.
Note: In doing (b)-(d), be
sure to verify as many stated ‘facts’ and, especially, as many quoted numbers
as you can.
-Can show whether the bill would REALLY “save about 1.1.
million barrels of oil per day”?
ENERGY POLICIES
-‘micro’ level: What are individuals, households and
businesses doing to “save the Planet”?
-‘macro’-level: What is the nation doing? (See, for
example, Energy
Policy Act of 2005.) And the world?
Lovins’s Soft Path update
(from “Natural Capitalism,” p. 252): “[T]he half-century transition along a ‘soft
energy path’ outlined in 1976 is already well under way… [E]fficiently used
fossil fuels would bridge to appropriate renewable sources – ‘soft
technologies’ – that would gradually take over. That’s roughly what happened.”
Is it really? Do you agree that (1) Amory Lovins was remarkably right regarding
the TOTAL energy consumption trends, but (2) he grossly overestimated the
contribution of renewables and underestimated the staying power of the “hard
path” options (fossil fuels and nuclear energy)?
Some 10
years ago, my recommendations for the use of fuel technologies were the
following (http://www.ems.psu.edu/~radovic/Chapter1.pdf):
Should today’s recommendations (wish lists?!) be different? Drastically
so?
Be sure to verify all
the posted grades (and absence of grades!)... If you think that in some cases
you deserved more (or less?), let’s go over them and discuss them in detail
asap!
Exam 3: 12/18, 8:00-9:50 AM, 167 Willard... practice exam to be posted here.
LRR3@psu.edu (updated 12/11/2007, 12:30 pm)