Outline Intro Lit Review Climate Change Wedge Game Current technology Windmill Hydrolysis Fuel cells ICE

Electricity Demand/Implementation Fuel Demand/Implementation First Part: Wedge Plan The climate is a very complex entity and climate change is very real, but obscure phenomenon. The magnitude of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere is changing the climate, and, thus, we would like to reduce these emissions, specifically CO2. By simplifying global warming to one variable, CO2, we can begin to grasp what it would take to stabilize global temperatures and mediate climate change. It is estimated that humans release 7 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels and that this will double to 14 gigatons by 2054. Princetons Pacala and Socolow decided to look into what it would take to curb this increase in CO2 emissions, by breaking it into more manageable 1 gigaton CO2 wedges. Each wedge, if fully implemented by 2054 and systematically implemented before them, would result in a

cumulative reduction of 25gigatons of CO2.

FIGURE X

To analyze the effect of a global hybrid wind powerhydrogen energy system, we used a wedge analysis. In particular, we modeled wind-hydrogen systems that would make a significant impact on global emissions, systems which would realize a 1 gigaton reduction in CO2 emissions. This told us how many wind turbines, and the space needed to fill one wedge. We decided to first look at the two extremes: how many wind turbines would be

needed to supply enough hydrogen by electrolysis to meet one wedge, and how many would be needed to supply enough electricity to meet one wedge. After the extremes we decided to calculate the turbines necessary for various hybrid systems. First, we will present our results and then we will explain how we arrived at them.

Results: Ours vs theirs In order to meet a wedge of CO2 reductions from displacing coal-fired electricity with wind power, the model predicts that 1.5 million 2.5 MW wind turbines would be needed and they would take up 0.4 million square kilometers. The number of wind turbines to meet a wedge by displacing gasoline with wind-generated hydrogen is even greater, ranging from 2.5 to 6.3 million 2.5 MW turbines, and they would occupy 0.7 to 1.9 million square kilometers. The Princeton report also calculated values for these two extremes, and determined that less wind power and space was necessary in each case. The Princeton report was based off of 1 MW turbines, thus at a first approximation one would expect our model to use four-tenths the number of turbines. Rather our model uses 0.475 to 0.75 the number of turbines. This probably reflects the difference in assumed efficiencies and coefficients of performance. The area occupied generated by our model per turbine is about 50% that provided in the Princeton study; however, it is only three-forths of the value per MW. Overall, our values generally agree with the Princeton study. Results and the intermediate values are presented in Table X.

Table X

% Electric Load 0 0 0 2 2 2 5 5 5 10 10 10 20 20 20 24

Fuel Cell Electrolysis Efficieny Efficiency 0.36 0.56 0.5 0.64 0.7 0.73 0.36 0.56 0.5 0.64 0.7 0.73 0.36 0.56 0.5 0.64 0.7 0.73 0.36 0.56 0.5 0.64 0.7 0.73 0.36 0.56 0.5 0.64 0.7 0.73 NA NA

Amount of H2 (million tonnes) 686 494 353 629 453 323 543 391 279 400 288 206 115 83 59 0

Number of 2.5MW Turbines (millions) 6.3 4 2.5 5.9 3.8 2.4 5.3 3.5 2.3 4.3 2.9 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.5

Area of Windmills (million km^2) 1.9 1.2 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.6 1 0.7 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4

Princeton Number of 1 MW Turbines

Princton Area of Turbines (million

0.6

0.3

A chart with the number of windmills needed for each percentage of electric load can be seen in Figure X. The profiles are linear and approach the Princeton study values as the efficiency of the fuel cell increases.

FIGURE X

The model was calculated as follows. The independent variable for the model is the percentage of world electricity to be displaced by wind power. This value ranges from 0% (whole wedge made up by displacing fossil based transportation fuel with hydrogen) to 24% (whole wedge made up by generating electricity). First, the model calculates the annual carbon reductions from electricity displacement. It is assumed that coal would be the first (and only) electricity source displaced due to its current wideuse, role in baseline electricity generation, and high carbon intensity. Thus, the carbon reductions ( Celec [=] gigatons/year) is equal to the electric fuel consumption ( Eworld [=] joules/year) multiplied

by the carbon intensity ( I coal [=] gigatonsC/joule) multiplied by the desired percentage of world electricity to replace with wind power ( W ),

C elec = E world I C ,coal W

(1)

Second, the model determines the energy of the transportation fuel which must be displaced to meet the full wedge ( Eneeded ,transport [=] joules/year). This is done by first dividing the difference between carbon in a wedge ( C wedge [=] gigatonC/year) and carbon displaced in wind electricity generation by the carbon intensity of transportation fuel ( I C ,transportfuel [=] gigatonsC/L) and then multiplying the result by the energy intensity of transportation fuel ( I E ,transportfuel [=] joules/L),

C wedge C elec E needed ,transport = I C ,transportf uel

I E ,transportf uel .

(2)

Third, the model calculates the hydrogen supplied energy needed ( Eneeded ,hydrogen [=] joules/year) by multiplying the energy needed from transport fuel with ratio of the efficiency of an internal combustion engine ( ICE ) to the efficiency of a fuel cell ( FC ),

E needed ,hydrogen = E needed ,transport ICE FC

I E ,transportfuel .

(3)

In this way, the model accounts for variation in efficiencies between internal combustion engines and fuel cells.

Forth, the total wind power needed ( Ewind [=] joules/year) is calculated by adding the initial electricity component to the electricity needed to produce the hydrogen ( Eneeded ,hydrogen [=] joules/year). The latter term is calculated by dividing the hydrogen energy needed by the losses for liquefaction (1 liquification ) and electrolysis ( electrolysis ),

E wind = E world W +

E needed ,hydrogen (1 liquificat ion ) electrolys is

(4)

Finally, the number of wind turbines needed ( N turbines [=] turbines) is calculated by dividing the wind power needed by the peak turbines power ( Ppeak ,turbine [=] joule/year) multiplied by its coefficient of performance ( COPturbine ),

Ppeak ,turbine N turbines = E wind COP turbine

(5)

Additionally, the model calculated the land area required ( Atotal [=]km2) by multiplying the number of turbines by the land required per turbine ( Aturbine [=] km2/turbine),

Atotal = N turbines Aturbine .

(6)

The results of these calculations are presented in Table X. It is interesting to note that meeting a wedge purely by displacing transportation fuel is actually over a hundred percent of the current light duty transportation fuel consumed in the world today.1 However, the fuel use is predicted to increase in the future so this displacement level, though highly unlikely to actually occur, would be possible.

Each value of our model:

W Eworld I coal C wedge

= [0, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.24] = 1.72 x 1020 joules/year = 2.42 x 10-20 gigatonsC/joule = 1 gigatonC/year

I C ,transportfuel = 6.31 x 10-13 gigatonsC/L I E ,transportfuel = 3.57 x 107 joules/L

ICE FC liquification electrolysis

= 0.38 = [0.36, 0.50, 0.70] = 0.40 = [0.56, 0.64, 0.73]

Ppeak ,turbine = 7.88 x 1013 joule/year

1

1.1845e12, %liters/year from EIADOE

COPturbine Aturbine

= 0.35 = 0.30 km2/turbine

Energy: We extensively used the Department of Energys Energy Information Administration (DOE EIA) database of energy figures for the world.2 In our model we used that the world consumes 5.56 x 10^19 joules of electricity per year (55.6 EJ). We also used that the world consumes 1.72 x 10^20 joules (172EJ) of fuel energy to produce this electricity. As a basic check for the validity of these numbers we computed the overall efficiency for would electricity generation and it came out to be 32.3%. As 41% of the worlds electricity comes from coal and a large fraction from less developed nations 32.3% appears to be a reasonable number. These values are also comparable to the averages presented by BP in determining the carbon intensity of various fuels.3 The EIA also had data for world transportation energy, in particular 1.18 x 10^12 liters of light duty vehicle fuel is consumed each year. Light duty vehicles would include cars and trucks weighing less than 6000 pounds (2.7 metric tones), excluding boats, planes, and tractor trailers. Each gallon of fuel contains approximately 3.49 x 10^7 joules per gallon. This is taken as the weighted average of diesel (3.64 x 10 ^7 J/gal) and gasoline (3.40 x 10^7 J/gal) with the latter accounting for 62.5% of transportation fuel.4

2 3

Get EIA source from Sam. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9008658&contentId=7016688 4 http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/climate_transport_brazil.ppt#260,5,Slide 5

Wedge: We are basing our model off of displacing one wedge, 1 gigaton carbon per year, as was done in the Princeton study. By multiplying by the ratio of carbon dioxide to carbon (44/12) we can determine the equivalent displacement of CO2, 3.67 gigatons annually.

Wind Turbine: Various wind turbines are on the market today. Three main manufacturers are Vesta, Siemens, and General Electric. The industrial models range generally range between 1.5 and 3.6 MW max power. A brief summary of current wind turbines can be seen in APPENDIX A. Turbines with a rated max power of 6MW are predicted to be built within the next five years; however, these are mainly for offshore locations. The model makes use of GEs 2.5 MW turbine. This turbine is fairly popular today for proposed wind sites and we believe it represents a fairly average turbine for the next decade in terms of physical size and power output. The turbine has three blades, 100 meters in diameter, which sweep an arc of 7,854. The turbine will operate in wind speeds between 3.5m/s and 25m/s, though it is rated at 12.5 m/s wind for maximum performance. FIGURE X shows the power curve for this model.5

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/downloads/ge_25mw_brochure.pdf

FIGURE: Power Curve For GE 2.5MW Turbine. The turbine can start producing power at 3.5m/s, but doesnt reach max power until 12.5m/s.

Efficiencies The model makes use of many efficiencies to better represent an actual system that uses todays best technology. Vehicles are approximately 20% efficient; however, many losses occur due to wind drag and friction. These losses are due to the vehicle itself and exist regardless of the engine used. According to an MIT Laboratory For Energy and the Environment report by Anup Bandivadekar and John Heywood in 2004 the internal combustion engine, itself, has an efficiency of 38%.6 This represents a top of the line engine which is compatible for hybrid use. Fuel cells are a more immature technology and thus the model uses a range of efficiencies as are suggested by Tester et al in Sustainable Energy. XXX type cells typically have an efficiency of 36%, XXX
6

Heywood source

type 50%, and XXX type 70%. (Sam I think I left my Sustainable Energy book in your suite last week)

In addition to how efficiently vehicles use hydrogen, it is important to take into account how efficiently hydrogen can be generated. This model considers two factors in hydrogen generation, electrolysis and liquefaction. Electrolysis would be used to produce hydrogen gas by running a current through water. Different electrolysis systems use different catalysts and methods to generate hydrogen, some of which are more effective than others. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory Protons PEM system is 56% efficient, an Avalance system is 64% efficient, and a Norsk Hydros bipolar alkaline system is 73% efficient.7 Our model couples the lowest quality electrolysis systems with the lowest quality fuel cells and highest quality systems together to generate worst and base case scenarios. Hydrogen is a very energy-dense fuel by mass (120MJ/kg LHV); however, as a gas, it is not energy-dense by volume. To use hydrogen in transportation, it would have to be highly pressurized, likely in liquid form. Thus, the model also accounts for the liquefaction penalty. Although, ideal liquefaction would use about 10% of the energy in the fuel actual processes for liquefaction would use about 40% of the energy in the fuel itself.8

Coefficient of Performance: Wind turbines, like all means of electricity production have capacity factors and efficiencies less than 100%. Windmill efficiency can be determined using the power curve for the model. By using a wind speed probability distribution for a specific location, you could determine
7 8

NREL http://stellar.mit.edu/S/course/2/sp07/2.62/courseMaterial/topics/topic3/lectureNotes/lec_3_thermodynamics_2/lec _3_thermodynamics_2.pdf

the expected output during that time. Integrating over all times would give a total power output and this value divided by the max power would give you the efficiency. For instance, in a simplified case, if the wind at a particular location was always blowing at 8m/s the power output would be 0.8MW and the efficiency of the wind turbine would be 0.8 / 2.5 or 32%. Additionally, windmills are not always operational; occasionally, they are taken offline for maintenance and repairs. It is expected that windturbines, like fossil and nuclear plants, will have a higher capacity factor as the technology matures. Combining these two for windmills is the wind turbine coefficient of performance. This value represents the ratio of actual power generated over a year to the max power that could be generated in a year. Thus, a 1MW turbine that produced 21.9 MJ of electricity in a year (0.5MWyears) would have a coefficient of performance of 0.25. This could result in a 50% efficient windmill operating 50% of the time. Current wind turbine coefficients of performance typically range from about 0.2 to 0.4 and average around 0.3. The model uses a value of 0.35, as it is obtained currently in some sites and this would account for the increase in usable generation time as the technology matures in the coming years.9

Land Area: The land area an energy technology occupies often relates to the energy density of the source. Renewables are generally low energy density sources and take up large tracts of land, especially when used to generate huge quantities of electricity as is needed to displace 1 gigaton of carbon. To determine the area needed per windmill we looked at current wind farms and consulted

Saddler et al. A Clean Energy Future For Australia. Clean Energy Future Group. March 2004. 85-90

http://www.awea.org/faq/basicen.html

technical literature. It is important to note that with wind turbines the space needed and the space used are very different quantities. The space used is the actually footprint of the turbines. This includes the pillars as well as access roads, cables, and maintenance sheds. According to the Australian Academy of Sciences this space is approximately 10m^2 per kW of max power.10 However, this space represents just five to ten percent of the space needed for a wind farm due to spacing requirements. A wind turbines rotor-span is the minimum separation distance; however, the closer turbines are together the less efficient the wind farm will be. Wind turbines generated electricity by converting the kinetic energy of wind into mechanical energy. Thus, wind has less energy and slows down after passing through a turbine and subsequent turbines would not be able to generate as much power as the first. The effect on efficiency can be seen in FIGURE X (from slides), resulting in a five to ten percent penalty for closely spaced turbines. We decided to use a spacing of 3 diameters by 10 diameters in our model, and include the potential efficiency penalty in our coefficient of performance. This spacing is consistent with recommendations for wind farms in New York and Australia. Using this spacing, and a 100 meter diameter, we found that each turbine would take up (0.1km*3)*(.1km*10) = .3km^2 or about 74 acres. This represents .12km^2 per MW (29.7 acres/MW) which is an intermediate value, greater than the Tehachapi wind farm in California, but less than the Horse Hollow Energy Center in Texas. Nevertheless, 90%-95% of this land area may be used for other purposes such as agriculture or solar power. Unfortunately, sites ideal for wind are often not ideal for these other activities.

10

http://www.science.org.au/nova/037/037box02.htm

Carbon Intensities: The carbon intensity of light duty transportation fuel was determined to be 6.31 x10^-13 gigatonsC/L from the 2004 Heywood report and this value agrees with the number presented by BP (6.27 x10^-13 gigatonsC/L).11 The carbon intensity of coal used in this model is 2.42 x 10^-20 gigatonsC/joule as provided by BP.12 This number is based off of the heating value of coal and not the efficiency associated with electricity generation.

Second Part: Implementation Case studies Current electricity profile Current light transport fuel profile Current emissions profile Rationale for proposed baseline elec. replacement US, China, France, Sweden, Scottish Island Conclusion APPENDIX A Slightly old data compiled at http://www.aweo.org/windmodels.html
blade *lengt h* 35.25 m (116 ft) 38.5 m (126 ft) GE 2.3 2.3 MW 47 m (154 hub ht 64.7 m (212 ft) 80 m (262 ft) 100 m total ht 99.95 m (328 ft) 118.5 m (389 ft) 147 m area swept by blades 3,904 m2 (0.96 acre) 4,657 m2 (1.15 acre) 6,940 m2 rpm range 11.122.2 max blade tip speed 183 mph rated wind speed 12 m/s (27 mph) 11.8 m/s (26 mph) ~14 m/s

model GE 1.5s

capacity 1.5 MW

GE 1.5sl

1.5 MW

10.120.4

184 mph

5.0-14.9

164 mph

11 12

Heywood BP

ft) GE 2.5 2.5 MW 44 m (144 ft) 42 m (138 ft) 41 m (135 ft) 45 m (148 ft) 50 m (164 ft)

(328 ft) 85 m (279 ft) 70 m (230 ft) 70 m (230 ft) 80 m (262 ft) 80 m (262 ft) 100 m (328 ft)

(482 ft) 129 m (423 ft) 112 m (336 ft) 111 m (364 ft) 125 m (410 ft) 130 m (427 ft) 150 m (492 ft) 125 m (410 ft) 121.5 m (399 ft) 99 m (325 ft) 98 m (322 ft) 121.2

(1.71 acres) 6,082 m2 (1.50 acres) 5,542 m2 (1.37 acres) 5,281 m2 (1.30 acres) 6,362 m2 (1.57 acres) 7,854 m2 (1.94 acres) 5.5-16.5 170 mph

(~31 mph) ~14.5 m/s (~32.5 mph) ~15 m/s (~34 mph) 13 m/s (29 mph) 11 m/s (25 mph) 15 m/s (34 mph)

GE 2.7

2.7 MW

6.0-18.0

177 mph

Vestas V82

1.65 MW

?-14.4

138 mph

Vestas V90

1.8 MW

8.8-14.9

157 mph

Vestas V100

2.75 MW

7.2-15.3

179 mph

Vestas V90

3.0 MW

45 m (148 ft) 43.5 m (143 ft)

80 m (262 ft) 78 m (256 ft) 68 m (223 ft) 60 m (197 ft) 80 m

6,362 m2 (1.57 acres) 5,945 m2 (1.47 acres) 3,019 m2 (0.75 acres) 4,536 m2 (1.12 acres) 5,333

9-19

200 mph

15 m/s (34 mph) c. 13.5 m/s (30 mph) 14 m/s (31 mph) c. 15 m/s (c. 34 mph) c. 15

Gamesa G87

2.0 MW

9/19

194 mph

Bonus (Siemens)

1.3 MW

31 m (102 ft) 38 m (125 ft) 41.2 m

13/19

138 mph

Bonus (Siemens)

2.0 MW

11/17

151 mph

Bonus

2.3 MW

11/17

164

(Siemens) (135 ft) Suzlon 950 0.95 MW 32 m (105 ft) 32 m (105 ft) 44.5 m (146 ft) 46.5 m (153 ft) 49.5 m (162 ft) REpower MM92 2.0 MW 46.25 m (152 ft)

(262 ft) 65 m (213 ft) 73 m (240 ft) 80 m (262 ft)

m (398 ft) 97 m (318 ft) 105 m (344 ft) 124.5 m (409 ft) 126.5 m (415 ft) 126.5 m (425 ft)

m2 (1.32 acres) 3,217 m2 (0.79 acres) 3,217 m2 (0.79 acres) 6,221 m2 (1.54 acres) 6,793 m2 (1.68 acres) 7,698 m2 (1.90 acres) 6,720 m2 (1.66 acres) 7.8-15.0 13.9/20. 8

mph

m/s (c. 34 mph) 11 m/s (25 mph) 12 m/s (27 mph) c. 11.5 m/s (c. 26 mph) c. 12.5 m/s (c. 28 mph) c. 12.5 m/s (c. 28 mph)

156 mph

Suzlon S.64/1250

1.25 MW

13.9/20. 8

156 mph

Clipper Liberty

2.5 MW (4 650 KW)

9.7-15.5

168 mph

100 m (328 ft)

146.2 5m (480 ft)

163 mph

11.2 m/s (25 mph)