1 / 28

Alternative Fuels

Alternative Fuels. Michael Fink, Steve Haidet , & Mohamad Mohamad. Thorium. Molten Salt Reactor. Energy Generation Comparison. 230 train cars (25,000 MT) of bituminous coal or, 600 train cars (66,000 MT) of brown coal, (Source: World Coal Institute ). =.

wesley-green
Download Presentation

Alternative Fuels

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Alternative Fuels Michael Fink, Steve Haidet, & MohamadMohamad

  2. Thorium

  3. Molten Salt Reactor

  4. Energy Generation Comparison 230 train cars (25,000 MT) of bituminous coal or, 600 train cars (66,000 MT) of brown coal, (Source: World Coal Institute) = or, 440 million cubic feet of natural gas (15% of a 125,000 cubic meter LNG tanker), 6 kg of thorium metal in a liquid-fluoride reactor has the energy equivalent (66,000 MW*hr electrical*) of: *Each ounce of thorium can therefore produce $14,000-24,000 of electricity (at $0.04-0.07/kW*hr) or, 300 kg of enriched (3%) uranium in a pressurized water reactor.

  5. Energy Extraction Comparison Uranium-fueled light-water reactor: 35 GW*hr/MT of natural uranium Conversion and fabrication 32,000 MW*days/tonne of heavy metal (typical LWR fuel burnup) 33% conversion efficiency (typical steam turbine) Conversion to UF6 293 MT of natural U3O8 (248 MT U) 1000 MW*yr of electricity 365 MT of natural UF6 (247 MT U) 39 MT of enriched (3.2%) UO2 (35 MT U) 3000 MW*yr of thermal energy Thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor: 11,000 GW*hr/MT of natural thorium Thorium metal added to blanket salt through exchange with protactinium 914,000 MW*days/MT 233U (complete burnup) 50% conversion efficiency (triple-reheat closed-cycle helium gas-turbine) Conversion to metal 0.9 MT of natural ThO2 0.8 MT of thorium metal 1000 MW*yr of electricity 0.8 MT of 233Pa formed in reactor blanket from thorium (decays to 233U) 2000 MW*yr of thermal energy Uranium fuel cycle calculations done using WISE nuclear fuel material calculator: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcm.html

  6. Waste generation from 1000 MW*yr uranium-fueled light-water reactor Conversion to natural UF6 (247 MT U) Mining 800,000 MT of ore containing 0.2% uranium (260 MT U) Milling and processing to yellowcake—natural U3O8 (248 MT U) Generates 170 MT of solid waste and 1600 m3 of liquid waste Generates ~600,000 MT of waste rock Generates 130,000 MT of mill tailings Enrichment of 52 MT of (3.2%) UF6 (35 MT U) Fabrication of 39 MT of enriched (3.2%) UO2 (35 MT U) Irradiation and disposal of 39 MT of spent fuel consisting of unburned uranium, transuranics, and fission products. Generates 314 MT of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DU); consumes 300 GW*hr of electricity Generates 17 m3 of solid waste and 310 m3 of liquid waste Uranium fuel cycle calculations done using WISE nuclear fuel material calculator: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcm.html

  7. Waste generation from 1000 MW*yr thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor Mining 200 MT of ore containing 0.5% thorium (1 MT Th) Milling and processing to thorium nitrate ThNO3 (1 MT Th) Generates 0.1 MT of mill tailings and 50 kg of aqueous wastes Generates ~199 MT of waste rock Disposal of 0.8 MT of spent fuel consisting only of fission product fluorides Conversion to metal and introduction into reactor blanket Breeding to U233 and complete fission Thorium mining calculation based on date from ORNL/TM-6474: Environmental Assessment of Alternate FBR Fuels: Thorium

  8. …or put another way…

  9. Mining waste generation comparison 1 GW*yr of electricity from a uranium-fueled light-water reactor Conversion to natural UF6 (247 MT U) Mining 800,000 MT of ore containing 0.2% uranium (260 MT U) Milling and processing to yellowcake—natural U3O8 (248 MT U) Generates 170 MT of solid waste and 1600 m3 of liquid waste Generates ~600,000 MT of waste rock Generates 130,000 MT of mill tailings 1 GW*yr of electricity from a thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor Mining 200 MT of ore containing 0.5% thorium (1 MT Th) Milling and processing to thorium nitrate ThNO3 (1 MT Th) Generates 0.1 MT of mill tailings and 50 kg of aqueous wastes Generates ~199 MT of waste rock Uranium fuel cycle calculations done using WISE nuclear fuel material calculator: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcm.html

  10. Operation waste generation comparison 1 GW*yr of electricity from a uranium-fueled light-water reactor Enrichment of 52 MT of (3.2%) UF6 (35 MT U) Fabrication of 39 MT of enriched (3.2%) UO2 (35 MT U) Irradiation and disposal of 39 MT of spent fuel consisting of unburned uranium, transuranics, and fission products. Generates 314 MT of DUF6; consumes 300 GW*hr of electricity Generates 17 m3 of solid waste and 310 m3 of liquid waste 1 GW*yr of electricity from a thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor Disposal of 0.8 MT of spent fuel consisting only of fission product fluorides Conversion to metal and introduction into reactor blanket Breeding to U233 and complete fission Uranium fuel cycle calculations done using WISE nuclear fuel material calculator: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcm.html

  11. Abundant?

  12. Negatives • Risk of accidents • Highly radioactive nuclear waste

  13. Future?

  14. Ammonia, Natural Gas Household Alternative Fuels

  15. Ammonia Fuel? • NH3 • Common uses: cleaning supplies, fertilizer, explosives • Ammonia: 21.36 BTU/g • Oil: 45.97 BTU/g, • Requires minor modifications to carburetors/injectors

  16. Sources • Atmospheric nitrogen and free hydrogen • Haber–Bosch process • Electrolysis • Coal gasification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Production_of_ammonia.svg

  17. Haber–Bosch process • CH4 + H2O → CO + 3 H2 • N2 (g) + 3 H2 (g) ⇌ 2 NH3 (g) • It is estimated that half of the protein within human beings is made of nitrogen that was originally fixed by this process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haber-Bosch-En.svg

  18. Natural Gas fuel? • Methane: 53.88 BTU/g • used in over 12 million vehicles • reliable and safe • Fuel storage occupies a large amount of space http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Carroagas.jpg

  19. Domestic Natural gas supplies http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuels.htm#USGas

  20. World Natural gas supplies http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuels.htm#WorldGas

  21. World Natural Gas Supplies Including Shale Gas http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/FossilFuels.htm#WorldGas

  22. Conclusions • Ammonia would function as a fuel, but why not use natural gas • only sustainable for several decades with optimistic supplies • reduced environmental impact • partially existing infrastructure http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/ngpipelines_map.html

  23. Plasma Arc Waste Disposal Turning Everyday Garbage into Everyday Energy

  24. The Technology • Garbage is passed through a plasma arc, which reaches 10,000 deg F, instantly vaporizing it. • Organic material turns into syngas, which can be used to drive electrical turbines. • Inorganic material turn into slag.

  25. Renewability • America produces about 675,000 tons of garbage a day. • 1500 tons of trash = 60 MW • Almost all of the trash is converted into usable byproducts, eliminating landfills.

  26. Pros • After initial energy is spent to ignite the plasma arc, the process is self-sustaining. • Electricity prices will be able to compete with natural gas. • Ability to turn medical and hazardous waste inert. • Material made from non-organic waste can be sold commercially.

  27. Cons • Dumping garbage at a plasma arc facility costs $137 more per ton. • Some CO2 produced. • Performance based on the content and consistency of the waste. • Current plant designs are less than 50% efficient at best. • Expensive liners need replaced every year • Unproven in a large-scale setting

  28. Questions?

More Related